FAO No.3754 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3754 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.01.2011 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited ...Appellant Versus M/s New Tech Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and another .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. C.S. Bakhshi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the court below whereby the objections filed by the appellant against the award of the Arbitrator, were dismissed. The dispute between the parties arose on account of alleged breach of agreement dated 03.10.1996 entered into for custom milling of paddy. Arbitration was sought by the appellant regarding claim for non return of required quantity of rice and also gunny bags etc. The Tribunal while rejecting the claim for non-supply of rice awarded ` 1,24,849/- to the appellant corporation on account of cost of 66,118 empty gunny bags retained by the miller along with tax thereto and also the amount of quality cut imposed by the Food Corporation of India along with transport charges etc. On the aforesaid amount interest @ 18% was awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two-fold submissions, namely, that once the Arbitrator had come to the conclusion that the dispute regarding their short delivery of rice against the paddy supplied to the miller falls within the “excepted matters” and could not have been gone into by the Arbitrator, he should have given liberty to the Managing Director to deal with the same. The second submission was that once Clause 9 (iii) of the agreement provided for award of the interest @ 21% per annum, interest @ 18% per annum awarded by the Arbitrator was not in terms of the agreement. FAO No.3754 of 2010 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions. The Arbitrator in the present case decided the claim made by the appellant in terms of the agreement signed between the parties and rightly opined that the issue regarding short supply of rice by the miller could have been gone into by the Managing Director and it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The learned court was merely dealing with the objections filed against the award of the Arbitrator and finding no illegality in the same, it was upheld. Accordingly, there is no merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. As far as award of the interest @ 18% is concerned, Clause 9 (iii) of the agreement would not be relevant for the purpose as that Clause has been provided only for the amount recoverable from the miller for non- supply of rice within the stipulated period, calculated on the basis of economic cost of left over material. Learned counsel has not referred to any other Clause in the agreement, which provides for interest @ 21% for any other claim to be made before the Arbitrator. In the absence thereof, the award of interest @ 18% by the Arbitrator, which has been upheld by the court below, cannot be faulted with. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 17.01.2011 sharmila