FAO No.42 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 42 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 M/s Kapurthala Rice Mills ...Appellant Versus The Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 42 and 43 of 2010. Challenge in the present appeals is to the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the learned court below dismissing the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”), as time barred. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that limitation for filing the objections has to be considered from the date when the copy of the award is served on a party. The same was received by the appellant on 27.09.2006 and the objections were filed in the court below on 24.01.2007, which were within the limitation. However, on the asking of the court learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that during the arbitration proceedings, though the appellant had initially appeared before the Arbitrator, but in the midst, he stopped appearing, as a result of which ex- parte award was passed on 9.5.2005. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the objections filed by the appellant as time barred. FAO No.42 of 2010 2 A perusal of the record shows that the arbitration proceedings commenced on 10.09.2003. Notices were issued to the parties. Appellant/miller put in appearance on 17.09.2003 and thereafter on 17.10.2003 none appeared for the appellant/miller. Notice was again issued for 4.11.2003, on which date, telegraphic adjournment was sought and the case was adjourned to 17.11.2003. On 17.11.2003 and 8.12.2003 the appellant/miller put in appearance. On 09.07.2004 witness of the respondents was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant/miler and thereafter, none appeared on behalf of appellant. On account of his failure ex-parte award was passed on 09.05.2005 Once it is admitted fact that before the Arbitrator initially the appellant had been appearing and later on he chose to be absent, and as a result of which the Arbitrator had passed ex parte award on 9.5.2005, the appellant cannot deny that he did not have knowledge of the arbitration proceedings and came to know only after the receipt of award. Under these circumstances, the alleged date of receipt of arbitration award, which is quite late if compared with the date of award, cannot be taken as the relevant date for counting of period of limitation to enable the appellant to challenge the same before the court below. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 08.02.2011 sharmila