FAO No.3755 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3755 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.01.2011 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Lakhpat Rai Amarjit and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. C.S. Bakhshi, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the court below whereby the objections filed by the appellants against the award of the Arbitrator were dismissed. The dispute in the parties arose on account of breach of agreement dated 12.11.1994 entered into for custom milling of paddy. Arbitration was sought by the appellants regarding claim for non return of required quantity of rice and also gunny bags etc. The Tribunal while rejecting the claim for non-supply of rice awarded ` 1,25,458/- to the appellant corporation on account of cost of 4,565 empty gunny bags retained by the miller along with tax thereto and also the amount of quality cut imposed by the Food Corporation of India along with transport charges etc. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once the Arbitrator had come to the conclusion that the dispute regarding short delivery of rice against the paddy supplied to the miller falls within the “excepted matters” and could not have been gone into by the Arbitrator, he should have given liberty to the Managing Director to deal with the same. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The Arbitrator in the present case decided the claim made by the appellants in terms of the agreement signed between the parties and rightly opined that the issue regarding short supply FAO No.3755 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of rice by the miller could have been gone into by the Managing Director that it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The learned court below was merely dealing with the objections filed against the award of the Arbitrator and finding no illegality in the same, it was upheld. Accordingly, there is no merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 17.01.2011 sharmila