IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.775 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 04.05.2010 **** Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another . . . . Appellants VS. M/s Shree Mahavir Rice Mills, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur through its partners . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order dated 13.12.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby, objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Arbitral Award dated 24.12.2003 whereby, the Arbitrator has given ‘Nil’ Award in favour of the claimants/appellants, have been dismissed.. Shorn of unnecessary details, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in terms of the agreement dated 21.10.1994 the respondents are not entitled to driage of 2% and are liable to repay for the unauthorized accumulation of the paddy. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no defect or error in the Arbitration Award because the appellants themselves have issued a letter R-A3 available on the record of the Arbitrator which signifies the final settlement of the accounts between the parties. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants in fact had submitted provisional accounts (Ex.P-2) with the affidavit of Subhash Kumar dated 12.10.1995. However, they have failed to state as to any final accounts were submitted either to the respondent or before the Arbitrator. In the absence of the final accounts, the provisional accounts (Ex.P-2) has to be considered to be final and in view of the letter R-A3 which signifies the final settlement of the amount between the parties, the Arbitrator has rightly held that no amount was due to be paid by the miller to the Corporation. Although, learned counsel for the appellants has argued with great vehemence but he has been totally unsuccessful to substantiate the arguments raised by him. Thus, I do not find any error in the judgment and order of the learned Civil Court dated 13.12.2007 and the Arbitrator’s Award dated 24.12.2003 and as such the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 04.05.2010 JUDGE Vivek