FAO No. 7257 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 7257 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2011 M/s Karan Rice & General Mills .. Appellant v. HAFED and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 9.12.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections filed by the appellant against the award of the Arbitrator dated 16.5.2007, were dismissed. It is a case in which the appellant was awarded a contract for shelling of paddy. On account of short delivery of rice, respondent No. 1 raised a claim of ` 15,75,759/-, for which the arbitration clause was invoked. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, in fact, had deposited a sum of ` 5,00,000/- with respondent No. 1 on 4.5.2006 even before the commencement of arbitration proceedings. A sum of ` 5,00,000/- was subsequently deposited by the appellant on 15.12.2006. The aforesaid amount was not adjusted, as the award has been passed by the Arbitrator on the basis of the claim made by respondent No. 1. He further submitted that the Arbitrator had gone wrong in awarding interest to respondent No. 1, considering the fact that as a matter of policy, FAO No. 7257 of 2010 [2] respondent No. 1 had waived off the interest to all similarly situated millers. The same was not waived off in the case of the appellant. He further submitted that the counter claim filed by the appellant was not even touched by the Arbitrator. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. A perusal of the award of the Arbitrator shows that claim of ` 15,75,759/- was raised by respondent No. 1 against the appellant before the Arbitrator. A sum of ` 5,00,000/- paid by the appellant on 15.12.2006 was adjusted against the amount claimed by respondent No. 1. It was stated by the learned counsel that prior thereto, ` 5,00,000/- were deposited on 4.5.2006. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator on 31.7.2006. There is nothing on record to show that in the claim statement filed by respondent No. 1, the aforesaid amount if paid by the appellant, had not been adjusted considering the fact that the matter was referred to the Arbitrator after the aforesaid amount of ` 5,00,000/- had allegedly been deposited by the appellant with respondent No. 1. In the absence thereof, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is totally mis-conceived and is rejected. As far as award of interest by the Arbitrator is concerned, the same has been awarded by the Arbitrator strictly in terms of the jurisdiction vested in him under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. In case, respondent No. 1 had waived off interest to any of the miller, that cannot be made the basis for challenging the award of the Arbitrator, as for that there are limited grounds on which the award can be challenged and this ground is not one of the grounds available. As far as argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding non-consideration of the counter claim filed by the appellant before the Arbitrator is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that any such counter claim was filed. This fact has not even been mentioned in the grounds of appeal to show that the appellant had filed the counter claim which was not considered by the Arbitrator. Rather, a perusal of the award of the Arbitrator shows that 13 adjournments were taken by the respondent therein before the Arbitrator but still nothing could be FAO No. 7257 of 2010 [3] substantiated before him. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, all the accompanying applications are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.5.2011 mk