F.A.O. NO.4358 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 19, 2008 Nand Lal and others .....Appellants VERSUS Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) for setting-aside the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24.5.2004. A dispute arose between the parties in regard to the F.A.O. NO.4358 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: custom milling of the paddy for the crop year 1998-99 between the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter called “the Corporation”) and M/s Sachdeva Traders, Rajpura. The Arbitrator gave an award, allowing the claim of the Corporation by directing recovery of a sum of Rs.39,11,237/- with interest at the rate of 21% till the date of award. The appellants filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside this award dated 24.5.2004 on the ground that the same dealt with the dispute not contemplated by or falling within the terms of the arbitration. It was also pleaded that the impugned award contained the decision on the matter beyond the submissions made before the arbitrator. The primary grievance raised by the appellants is that the agreement was void and against the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. It was further pleaded that reference to the Arbitrator is not maintainable because as per the provisions of the agreement, Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, is competent to take decision. The Court recorded evidence of various witnesses as produced by the parties and ultimately dismissed the application, which is impugned through the present appeal. It has rightly been noticed that the main dispute between the parties is in regard to the validity of the agreement. The case set up by the appellants is that the agreement dated 31.5.1998 was never read over and explained to the appellant-firm and the partners were made to sign on a printed proforma. It is, thus, noticeable that the signatures on the agreement are not disputed but is being urged that these were obtained on blank papers. In the written statement, F.A.O. NO.4358 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: however, this fact had not been so mentioned that the signatures were obtained on blank papers. Each page of the agreement was found signed in English and the agreement is a typed one. The main conditions are also found typed. The appellants can not be heard to urge that they had not read or were not read over the terms of the agreement and they were made to sign on the blank papers. Appellants are found to be well educated and well aware of the affairs in life. They are business men and can not be expected to sign in blank. This is only a plea raised to escape liability. The contention in regard to the validity of the agreement, therefore, as raised by the appellants can not be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellants then made an attempt to urge that reference was made to the Arbitrator beyond the period of limitation. This plea was never raised either before the Arbitrator or before the District Judge who decided the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the plea of limitation is not made out from the facts in this case. The liability was to remain in operation till the outstanding dues of the claimants were settled. Since the outstanding dues had not been settled, a plea for appointing Arbitrator was made which lead to the award in favour of respondent No.1. This plea of limitation accordingly is not made out. I am also not impressed with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants that the interest awarded at the rate of 21% is highly excessive. There is a justification in the plea raised by counsel for respondent No.1 that this is the rate of interest F.A.O. NO.4358 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: agreed between the parties in the terms of the agreement and as such, the appellants can not be heard to say that this interest is excessive. I find no merit in the appeal and the same is as such, dismissed. August 19 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE