In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.1571 of 2008 (O&M) ….. Date of decision:August 18, 2011 M/s Jawala Rice Mills and another ... Appellant v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and others ... Respondents ….. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Present: Mr. Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents. …… Mohinder Pal, J. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.1.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the objection petition filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short - `the Act') against the award dated 5.12.2003 passed by the Sole Arbitrator was dismissed. As per facts of the case, the appellants had entered into F.A.O. No.1571 of 2008 (O&M) [2] agreement dated 7.10.1994 with the respondents for custom milling of rice for the year 1994-95. The appellants had not supplied the milled rice as agreed by it (appellants) during the stipulated period. As per the agreement, the Punjab State Coopeative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `Markfed') (respondent herein) supplied 18,201 bags of IR 8 paddy weighing 11,830.65 quintals and 72,031 bags of PR 106 paddy weighing 44,820.15 quintals to M/s Jawala Rice Mills, Ferozsepur City (appellants herein). According to the agreement, the appellants were required to deliver rice to the FCI in the account of Markfed upto 28.2.1995 as per schedule of delivery i.e. IR 8 rice to the extent of 8115.82 quintals and PR 106 rice to the extent of 31,200.96 quintals. However, the appellants supplied PR 106 rice to the extent of 491.82.800 and IR 8 rice to the extent of 1401.42.200 quintals. In this way, the appellants failed to mill paddy and supply rice thereof to FCI in the account of Markfed to the extent of 68,698 bags of PR 106 paddy weighing 44,651.70 quintals and 17,098 bags of IR paddy weighing 11,113.70 quintals. Accordingly, the appellants lifted 67,394 bags weighing 42,755.32 quintals costing `1,69,31,107/-. As a result of which the claimants-respondents suffered financial loss of `39,79,237/-. As such, the respondents claimed adjudication of the dispute before the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed the award dated 5.12.2003 holding the appellants and its partners jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of `64,06,749/- after adjustment of the payable amount of `4,12,485/-. It was further ordered that the appellant and its partners would be jointly and severally liable to pay interest at the average current bank rate at 15 per cent per annum from 1.7.1995 till the date of realization. The F.A.O. No.1571 of 2008 (O&M) [3] appellants filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Objection petition has been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide judgment dated 24.1.2008. Hence this appeal by the appellant. I have heard Mr. Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate appearing for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case. The objection petition was filed by the appellants before the learned District Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator had illegally and arbitrarily accepted the claim of the respondents without any evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that arbitration claim of the claimants deserved to be dismissed on the short ground that this case falls within “excepted matters” and no reference for arbitration could be made as per the arbitration clause of agreement. According to him this case falls within Clauses 5 and 6 (i) and (iii) of the agreement which provide for excepted matters. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this does not fall in these clauses of the agreement. According to her, it falls under Clauses 4 and 14 (ii) of the agreement as also stated in the claim petition because only difference of amount of financial loss has been claimed, which the respondents had to suffer on account of sale of paddy to the appellants as the same had deteriorated under their custody and charge. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that main amount shown as recoverable from the appellants is on account of shortage of paddy found at its premises after the balance un-milled paddy with it was sold. It had F.A.O. No.1571 of 2008 (O&M) [4] unauthorizedly converted this paddy into rice and must have sold the same in the market for earning profit. This falls under Clause 14 (ii) of the agreement which does not have any “excepted matter clause”. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that reference for arbitration deserves to be terminated on account of “excepted matters” is devoid of any merit. It is well-settled that while hearing objections against the award, the Court need not re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties before the Arbitrator in order to substitute its own opinion. A perusal of the record reveals that the Arbitrator had afforded reasonable opportunity to the parties to plead their case by producing the evidence they wanted to bring on record. Apparently, there was no illegality or impropriety in the award given by respondent No.2. All the documents produced by the parties were taken into account by the Arbitrator and the award was made after considering the submissions made by them. In view of this, the learned District Judge was justified in dismissing the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act against the award dated 5.12.2003 passed by the Arbitrator. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. August 18, 2011 (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*