FAO No. 5387 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 5387 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 12, 2009 Sukhjinder Singh ........ Appellant Versus The Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. D S Pheruman, 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. 26607 CII of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of accordingly. C M No. 26609-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed. Appeal This is an appeal against the judgement dated 17.03.2009 passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the objection petition filed by the FAO No. 5387 of 2009 2 appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act) against the arbitral award dated 25.10.2005. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no notice was served to the appellant and hence was not properly served. Therefore, the award is an ex-parte award. Secondly, there was no physical verification of the premises. The appellant was not joined at the time of physical verification, if any. Thus, there was no shortage and the entire paddy lying in the premises of the mill was taken away by the employees of the respondent Corporation. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. A finding of fact has been duly recorded by the District Judge, which reads as under:- “17. A perusal of the record of the arbitration proceedings brings out that a copy of the agreement dated 22.10.2001 is available there as Exhibit P5. It has been signed on behalf of M/s Raj Mukhtiar Rice Mills by Baldev Singh, Sukhjinder Singh and Parvinder Singh. A copy of special power of attorney executed by the firm in favour of Sukhjinder Singh is also available on the record of the arbitrator as Exhibit P6. It also comes out from the record of the arbitrator that the applicant was impleaded as respondent o. 8 before the arbitrator and he had put in appearance through his counsel Shri M K Upneja, Advocate on 25.04.2004, but had disappeared from the proceedings thereafter. In view of the FAO No. 5387 of 2009 3 circumstances he was proceeded against ex-parte.” Thus, a finding has been duly recorded that the appellant was represented by his Advocate, which shows that he was duly served. The second arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents that there was no shortage and there was no physical verfication, is a ground beyond the scope of interference under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. No fault can be found with the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the objection petition was dismissed. No ground is made out to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 12, 2009 mohan