Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.10.2011 Deepak Rice Mill and another .... Petitioners Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,PUNSUP & Ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This petition has been brought by Deepak Rice Mill under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide which the objections to the award dated 18.01.2000 under execution before learned Additional District Judge have been dismissed. Between Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, PUNSUP(for short 'PUNSUP') and the petitioner M/s Deepak Rice Mill, there had been an agreement for milling of rice under which paddy was allotted to them. On a dispute having arisen between the two, Arbitrator was appointed as per the terms of the agreement. The Arbitrator made an Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2011 --2-- award dated 18.01.2000, which has been put to execution by PUNSUP in the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana. In the said execution application, the petitioner has filed objections claiming that PUNSUP has no legal right to initiate arbitration proceedings as the petitioner had done the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was also alleged that Inspector of PUNSUP, Machiwara had issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.1998 that the petitioner has already done the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further added that no intimation was given to the petitioner about the appointment of the arbitrator and even arbitrator did not give intimation to the petitioner about the proceedings. A copy of the award was also not sent to the petitioner, which is mandatory under the provisions of section 31(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 . The objections were resisted by PUNSUP alleging that they are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the application. It was averred that the petitioner and its partners were legally served by the arbitrator before entering upon the reference and they have intentionally absented from the arbitration proceedings. The allegations made by the petitioner and others are said to be mischievous and without any basis, having been made solely with a view to malign the reputation of the arbitrator. The jurisdiction of the civil court to set aside the award has been questioned and objection petition has been prayed to be dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2011 --3-- On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1- Whether ex-parte award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in para no.5 of the objection petition?OP (Objectors) 2- Whether the objectors are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the objection petition ?OP(DH) 3- Whether the objection petition is barred by limitation?OPD 4- Relief. Hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana has dismissed the objection petition vide the impugned order. The said order has been questioned by the petitioner by way of this revision petition. I have heard Shri Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the record. All the objections mentioned above have been reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioner before me. Most of those objections are countered in the statement of Naresh Kumar, one of the partners of the firm himself, who has appeared in the objections as his own witness. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the agreement in question was executed between the decree holder and M/s Deepak Rice Mill Ltd., Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2011 --4-- all the partners of M/s Deepak Rice Mills Ltd. are brothers, Harcharan Lal, one of the partners of the firm, had appeared in the arbitration proceedings and that Harcharan Lal had signed the arbitration proceedings. He has also admitted that the letter addressed to M/s Deepak Rice Mills Ltd. had been delivered to them. It is otherwise evident from the record that in the presence of Harcharan Lal, the other partners were proceeded against ex-parte by the arbitrator. In view of the aforesaid admissions of Naresh Kumar himself, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. If any objection was to be raised to the appointment of the arbitrator or any other matter connected with the arbitration proceedings, then the same should have to be done during the arbitration proceedings. These objections, accordingly, cannot be heard in the execution proceedings. The original certificate issued by the inspector of PUNSUP has not been proved on the record. A copy of the same has been placed on the file but no evidence has been led to prove that the alleged author of the certificate had been authorized by PUNSUP to issue such certificate. When a partner of the petitioner appeared before the arbitrator and thereafter chose to stay away from the proceedings, in whose presence the other partners of the firm were proceeded against ex- parte, the objection petition cannot be given any credence if it is even filed after the expiry of limitation. In this case, the award was passed on Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2011 --5-- 18.01.2000 and the objections have been filed on 30.03.2002. For all these valid reasons, learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), -Executing Court, Ludhiana has dismissed the objection petition. I find no reason to differ from the reasons given by learned Executing Court for dismissing the objection petition. Therefore finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.10.2011 dinesh