FAO No.1336 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 05.5.2010. Punjab State Warehouse Corporation,Chandigarh through its Manager --Appellant vs. M/S.Guru Nanak Rice and General Mils,Ferozepur Cantt and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Shiva Anand,Advocate,for Mr.ADS Sukhija,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Mrigank Sharma,Advocate,for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order of learned District Judge, Ferozepur Cantt, dated 28.8.2007, whereby objections filed by the appellant Punjab State Warehouse Corporation, (for short,Corporation) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short, the Act), against the arbitral award dated 30.10.2003, have been dismissed, wherein the appellant had claimed recovery of Rs. 1,34,91,518.00 including interest @ 21% per annun and further interest @ 30% per annum till the recovery. FAO No.1336 of 2008 2 The Arbitrator had dismissed the reference on the ground that agreement is unilateral and has not been signed by the parties as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act, therefore, it is not tenable according to law and as such the same was declined. The learned District Judge, Ferozepur, had dismissed the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act on the ground that as per Section 7 of the Act, the arbitration agreement has to be in writing and signed by all the parties and if one of the parties has not signed the agreement, it is not an agreement in the eyes of law and once the agreement is not duly established, there is no question of involving any arbitration clause in the said agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the agreement has not been signed by the respondents, yet the same has been acted upon as is evident from the record. The statement made by learned counsel for the appellant has not been controverted by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UNISSI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 107, to contend that in case a unilateral agreement has been acted upon by the respondents, then the agreement is legal and valid for the purpose of seeking arbitration. Learned counsel for the respondents could not cite any judgment to the contrary. In the afore-referred case of UNISSI (INDIA) PRIVATE FAO No.1336 of 2008 3 LIMITED (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:- “Therefore, considering the above aspects of the matter in this case,we must come to this conclusion that although no formal agreement was executed, the tender documents indicating certain conditions of contract contained an arbitration clause. It is also an admitted position that the appellant gave his tender offer which was accepted and the appellant acted upon it. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Addl.District Judge,Chandigarh erred in holding that there did not exist any arbitration agreement between the parties and, therefore, the order passed by him is liable to be set aside”. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The arbitration award as well as the impugned order passed on 28.8.2007 by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties afresh after taking the evidence in accordance with law. 05.5.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge