FAO No. 4531 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4531 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.2.2011 M/s Ajnala Rice Mills, Ajnala .. Appellant v. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 8.12.2008, passed by the learned court below rejecting the objections filed by the appellant against the award of the Arbitrator. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. The dispute pertains to an agreement signed between the parties for shelling of paddy for the crop year 1998-99 on account of short and delayed delivery of rice or return of paddy. The Arbitrator awarded a sum of ` 73,08,289/- inclusive of interest upto 31.12.2000 to respondent No. 1. The objections against the award of the Arbitrator filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two-fold submissions, namely, that the quantity of paddy allotted to him for shelling was beyond his capacity and secondly the quantity of rice which was shelled out of paddy and lying in the mill of the appellant was not accepted by respondent No. 1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 FAO No. 4531 of 2009 [2] submitted that no objection was taken by the appellant at any stage regarding allotment of quantity of paddy for shelling. He did not avail of various opportunities afforded to him by the Arbitrator, as no evidence was led in defence. He further submitted that whatever quantity of rice had been delivered by the appellant, the same has been taken care of in the claim statement filed by respondent No. 1 and the amount awarded by the Arbitrator is on account of balance paddy, empty gunny bags, sales tax etc. There is no irregularity in the proceedings before the Arbitrator. The appellant had enough opportunity to lead evidence before the Arbitrator but he failed to avail of that. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The Arbitrator in his award dated 21.7.2003, especially in paragraph 10 thereof, had mentioned that the appellant herein had not led any evidence even though five effective opportunities were afforded. On 30.5.2003, in the absence of counsel for the appellant before the Arbitrator, he was directed to be proceeded against ex parte even though prior thereto, the appellant was represented before the Arbitrator and was well aware of the pendency of proceedings. Under the circumstances, the Arbitrator accepted the claim made by respondent No. 1 and determined the amount which was due from the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant never raised any objection before any of the authorities at the time when the paddy was allotted to him for the purpose of shelling with regard to the fact that capacity of the mill was not enough to shell that much quantity of paddy. The aforesaid contention raised at this stage is totally misconceived. As far as the rice, which allegedly at the time of proceedings before the Arbitrator was lying ready after shelling in the mill of the appellant and of which the delivery was not taken by respondent No. 1 is concerned, the same is also totally misconceived for the reason that it is not the case of the appellant that the aforesaid rice was delivered to respondent No. 1. In fact, the paddy or the rice had remained in the custody of the appellant. The Arbitrator had assessed the amount due to respondent No. 1 only considering the claim made by respondent No. 1 with regard to short delivery of rice against the paddy and other amount on account of empty gunny bags, sales tax etc. FAO No. 4531 of 2009 [3] For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 21.2.2011 mk