FAO No.2336 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on August 06,2010 Balwinder Singh --Appellant vs. Punjab State Warehouse Corporation and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar,SrAdvocate, with Mr.Pardeep Kumar,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Amit Dhawan,Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is directed against the order of District Judge,Gurdaspur,dated 2.3.2009 by which objections filed by the appellant as well as by the respondents against the arbitral award dated 15.9.2003 have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant, has inter-alia, submitted that the Arbitrator has delved into the excepted matter and has transgressed his jurisdiction. He has referred to the obsevations of the Arbitrator wherein he has observed as under:- FAO No.2336 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “As far as payment of interest on shortage of paddy referred to above is concerned, as per clause 6 of the agreement between the parties, in the event of failure to supply rice within the stipulated period, the miller shall be liable to pay interest @ 21% on the economic cost of left over quantity/stock of paddy/rice, the decision of the MD, PSWC in this behalf shall be final. There is no evidence on the record that any such decision was taken by the competent authority in this regard. As such the claimant shall be entitled to get interest @ 18% P.A. which would be in consonance with the provision of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996”. Even at the time of notice of motion, the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that “Learned counsel for the appellant, inter-alia contends that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of shortage and interest because the said dispute comes within the purview of the MD alone. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Shree Krishna Rice Mills vs. The Punjab State Co- operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.” 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 254. Notice of motion for 6.8.2009” Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon two decisions of this Court in this regard, namely District Food and Supplies Controller, Moga Vs. M/s Aggarwal Rice Mills, Baghapurana, Distt.Moga 2010 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 756 and Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PUNSUP) Chandigarh Vs M/s. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, Mehraj Road, Rampura Phul and others 2010 (2) R.C.R.(Civil ) 786, which could FAO No.2336 of 2009 (O&M) 3 not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents, rather Sh.Amit Dhawan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has stated that this case is covered by the aforesaid judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the fact that there is no dispute on the issue that excepted matter cannot be decided by the Arbitrator, which though has been decided, the present appeal is allowed and the award of the Arbitrator, insofar as the excepted matter is concerned, which has been decided by him, is hereby set aside. August 06,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge