FAO No.3764 of 2008 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3764 of 2008 Date of Decision: 01.11.2011 M/s Aggarwal Rice Mills, Ferozepur Cantt through its partners ....Appellant Versus The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents-PUNSUP. JASWANT SINGH, J Appellant-Rice Mill has filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 15.1.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide which petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-Rice Mill was doing the business of milling paddy and an agreement dated 23.9.1992 was entered into between the parties regarding the custom milling of Punsup paddy by the appellant-Rice Mill (a partnership Firm) but a dispute arose. Consequently, the matter was referred to the sole FAO No.3764 of 2008 #2# Arbitrator, who vide his ex parte award dated 17.3.1999 awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- along with future interest @ 21% per annum from 7.7.1997 i.e the date of filing of the claim petition by the Corporation- claimants till its payment. Aggrieved against the said award, a petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed by the appellant-Rice Mill, which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide the impugned judgment, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the judgment as well as the award is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the agreement dated 23.9.1992 is illegal, null and void and against the public policy of India as it gives a unilateral right to the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator without the consent of the appellant-Rice Mill. It is further argued that the appellant-Firm was pursuing its remedy before a wrong Forum under a bonafide impression, therefore, in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the learned District Judge ought not to have decided issue No.2 against the appellant rather should have condoned the delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the agreement was entered into with free consent of the parties and the same is binding upon the appellant and the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is further argued that provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the matter in controversy. FAO No.3764 of 2008 #3# After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. There is no quarrel with the legal preposition that in case a party has been pursuing its remedy under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before a wrong Forum under a bonafide impression, then in view of Section 14 (1) of the Limitation Act, the period spent on such proceedings should be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co Ltd v. J.A Infrastructure Pvt Ltd 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 331, M/s Shakti Tubes Ltd Tr Director v. State of Bihar & Ors 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 512 & Coal India Limited & Anr v. Ujjal Transport Agency & Ors 2010 (4) Arbi LR 310. But admittedly in the present case, the appellant did not file any application for claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, thus, there was no occasion for the learned District Judge to exclude the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and as such, issue No.2 has rightly been decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. The argument that agreement dated 23.9.1992 is illegal and against the public policy of India on the ground that it gives a unilateral right to the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator without the consent of the appellant-Rice Mill is not tenable at this stage when both the parties have entered into an agreement with their free consent and there is a FAO No.3764 of 2008 #4# specific clause for Arbitration in the said agreement. Thus, the argument raised is an after thought and deserves to be rejected being devoid of merit. A perusal of clause 20 of agreement dated 23.9.1992 (P.2) makes it abundantly clear that there was a valid arbitration clause to refer the matter for arbitration and in pursuance of that Sh. H.L. Randev, learned District & Sessions Judge (Retd) was appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the arbitral dispute. It is necessary to mention here that in response to the notice issued by the Arbitrator, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-Rice Mill despite sending a notice under registered cover as well as U.P.C, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte on 7.7.1997. Thereafter, evidence was led on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and an ex parte award was passed on 17.3.1999 (A.1). The contention that there was no occasion for service of the arbitral award, is not sustainable in view of the fact that this Court vide order dated 4.10.2010 directed the appellants to place on record copy of summons received by them but nothing has been done and the order dated 4.10.2010 reads as under: “Learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia, contends that the Mill was lying closed since 1.4.1995, therefore, there was no occasion for service of the Arbitrator's award or that of the Court upon them. They came to know only when they were served at House No.55, Chowk Road, Ferozepur Cantt. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to place on record copy of the summons received by him. FAO No.3764 of 2008 #5# Adjourned to 12.1.2011.” There is delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal also. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case discussed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the appellants are taking the litigation as a luxury and have not been serious at any stage. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 15.1.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Dismissed. No further orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay. November 01, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE