FAO No. 4577 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 4577 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: November 27, 2009 The Haryana State Cooperative Supplyh and Marketing Federation Limited. ........ Appellant Versus M/s Shree Olive Fabrics and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the Appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. C M No. 27810 CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Copy of letter dated 21.01.1995 is taken on record. Appeal This is an appeal against the judgement dated 04.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and FAO No. 4577 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act) against the Award dated 09.09.1999 has been dismissed. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant gave an offer for the sale of cotton bales which was accepted by the respondent. As per the agreement 300 bales of cotton were sold vide different bills. The respondent, however, paid a sum of Rs.9,02,547/- as on 28.08.1998 and the balance amount was not been paid. The respondent sold 100 bales of cotton of M/s K P V Yarn Private Limited, 50 cotton bales to Shri Vishnu Spinners and 50 cotton bales to Komminar Textiles Private Limited. Even though the payment was to be made to the appellant, yet the same was not done. Only a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- was paid to the HAFED by M/s K P V Yarn Private Limited and no other payment was received. Accordingly, a claim was filed for a sum of Rs.31,02,408/- along with interest. However, vide award dated 09.09.1999 passed by the Arbitrator, the appellant was directed to pay only Rs.1,89,104.00 along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of announcement of the order. While challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that undue and unwarranted reliance has been placed on Ex. R-5 dated 08.02.1995. It is stated that the aforesaid document-Ex.R-5 did not transfer the liability of the respondents from making the payment. It was further stated that the delivery of the cotton bales is not in dispute and the burden to prove the payment that the had FAO No. 4577 of 2008 (O&M) 3 been made was upon the respondents and the respondents had failed to show that the payment with respect to the cotton bales had been made. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. The arbitrator after taking into account the entire evidence came to the following conclusion:- “That the claimant petitioner recovered the entire cost of 200 bales from the above said 3 firms on different dates through cheques, DD/Cash on different dates remained uncontroverted even by the learned counsel of the claimant petitioner which clearly frees the respondent from any obligation of payment of 200 bales of cotton. This is also a fact that the respondent has out of its total liability of Rs.10,46,651.00 paid Rs.8,57,547.00 as on 28.08.1998 which has been admitted by the claimant petitioner and thus the dispute stands narrowed down to Rs.1,89,104 plus interest to be paid by the respondent firm to the claimant-petitioner.” There is nothing to show that the above finding is incorrect or not borne out from the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as to how the award is against the agreement or against the contract. If any communication is referred to the Arbitrator, it cannot be said that the FAO No. 4577 of 2008 (O&M) 4 arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of arbitration, as referred to him. Even otherwise, the Court has a limited jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the case of McDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. Versus BURN STANDARD CO. LTD. AND OTHERS 2006(11) Supreme Court Cases 181. Hon’ble the Supreme Court advised that the supervisory roles of the Court for the review of the arbitral Court is to be kept at the minimum level. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of G. Ramachandra Reddy and Company vs. Union of India and another 2009(6) Supreme Court Cases 414, went on so far to hold in para 19 of the said judgement:- “19. We may, at the outset, notice the legal principles governing the dispute between the parties. Interpretation of a contract may fall within the realm of the arbitrator. The Court while dealing with an award would not re-appreciate the evidence. An award containing reasons also may not be interfered with unless they are found to be perverse or based on a wrong proposition of law. If two views are possible, it is trite, the court will refrain itself from interfering.” Similar view point was stated in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gupta Brothers Steel Tubes Ltd. 2009(3) Arb. LR 466 (SC). There is nothing in the award requiring intervention by the Court. Thus, the award is in accordance with the dispute referred to it and in accordance with the agreement. FAO No. 4577 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 27 , 2009 mohan