IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: F.A.O. 2716 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : July 17,2009 M/s Paras Traders .......Appellant versus District Food & Supply Office & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, A.A.G., Punjab NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 02-04-2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar vide which, the objection application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been dismissed. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant, before the Arbitrator was that the objection petitioner/miller never entered into any agreement with the department and his signature was procured by the department on blank papers, which were filed in on a printed proforma by the official of the department without the knowledge of the appellant. The said argument of learned counsel for the appellant was rejected by recording the following findings :- “ The perusal of the record shows that AW-1 Rakesh Dummra has duly put his signatures in English on the agreement in question. The agreement in question is not on a printed proforma F.A.O. 2716 of 2008 -2- rather it has been typed on a stamp paper. Then, the points, where Rakesh Dummra has put his signature, do not create any doubt regarding its genuineness. Above all, the objector has taken benefit of this agreement and has received the payment of the work done, by virtue of this contract. So, now, it does not lie in the mouth of objector to say something regarding the genuineness or legality of the agreement. So, this objection of the appellant is, hereby, rejected being devoid of any merit.” Learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the above said findings submitted that the findings are not correct, in as much as, signatures were obtained on blank papers and the alleged agreement dated 29-11-2001, relied upon by the claimants, is null and void and this fact is borne out from the fact that the agreement relied upon by the claimant/respondent is dated 29-11-2001. It is handwritten date by none else except claimant/respondent, whereas, in para No.17 of the said agreement, the validity/contract period of the said agreement is stated to be up to 14-09-2001 and similarly, in para No.9, the validity of the guarantee bond is stated to be up to 14-09-2001. Thus, it is clear that the agreement has been made upon blank papers got signed by claimant/respondent misusing its position. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected, in as much as, there is no explanation as to why the fact of the date of agreement, as 29-11-2001 and the date of contract period mentioned as 14-09-2001, was never specifically F.A.O. 2716 of 2008 -3- argued before the Arbitrator or before the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar during the hearing of the Objection application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No doubt, it is mentioned that there was no valid agreement and signatures were obtained on blank paper but this issue in particular about conflicting dates was neither argued nor specifically stated in the pleadings as stated now before this Court. It appears that one of the two dates i.e. either of the agreement or the date as to the validity of the contract period was wrongly mentioned. The appellant was aware of the same and inspite of being aware of the same, did not raise this issue with respect to the conflicting dates of agreement as well as the date of the period of contract to prove that the agreement was not a valid agreement. The only basis for challenging the agreement before the Arbitrator and before the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was that the signatures were obtained on blank papers. This argument was properly and effectively dealt with while deciding the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same is already reproduced above. There is no explanation as to how the appellant did not challenge the genuiness of the agreement while receiving payment of the work done but disputed the same before the Arbitrator when the respondents filed their claim. The date of the validity of contract period seems to have been wrongly typed as 14-09-2001 as is evident from the fact recorded by the Court below that the shelled rice which was to be delivered by the appellant on 28-02-2002, was later on extended upto 31-12-2002. Moreover, the agreement is on a stamp paper. Thus, the appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of an obvious F.A.O. 2716 of 2008 -4- typographical error to show that the agreement was not valid. The validity of the agreement was challenged before the Arbitrator and before the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar only on the ground of signatures obtained on blank papers and not on the innocuous date of the contract period. It shows that the petitioner knew that the mention of the wrong date was a typographical error. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE July 17, 2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No