FAO No.342 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.342 of 2008(O & M) Date of decision: 22.09.2011 M/s Friends Rice Traders & Ors. ....appellants Versus The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Karan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. : Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that the appellant M/s Friends Rice Traders (appellant-Firm) was carrying on its business of de-husking of paddy. During the paddy crop of the year 1994-95, the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and its officer respondents, supplied paddy to the appellant-Firm for de-husking and executed the agreement dated 08.11.1994, in this regard. In the wake of dispute between the parties, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator. After following the due procedure, the Arbitrator submitted his arbitrarial award dated 28.11.2002. 2 Aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, the appellant-Firm filed objection petition, for setting it aside before the District Judge, Ferozepur, invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). 3 The District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissed the objection petition vide FAO No.342 of 2008(O & M) 2 impugned order dated 13.11.2006. 4 Appellant-Firm, still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgement and preferred the instant appeal. 5 At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant-Firm argued that since the Arbitrator did not follow the due procedure, so the impugned award is illegal and is liable to be set aside. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the Arbitrator has duly followed the procedure and passed the award after giving opportunity to the parties. He contended that this Court has dismissed the FAO No.341 of 2008 titled as M/s Hari Om Rice Mills versus The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others and upheld the similar award and judgement under the same set of circumstances vide order dated 21.09.2010. 6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter to me, there is no merit in the instant appeal. 7 What is not disputed, here, is that the parties entered into an agreement dated 08.11.1994 for custom milling of paddy for the crop year 1994-95. The receipt of quantity of the paddy is also admitted by the appellant- Firm. The respondents filed detailed claim before the Arbitrator, touching almost all the aspects of the dispute having arisen between the parties. The Arbitrator followed the due procedure, minutely discussed the points of dispute between the parties and passed a well reasoned arbitrarial award. 8 Not only that, having completed all the codal formalities, the District Judge, Ferozepur, has also minutely dealt with the objection raised by the appellant-Firm and dismissed the objection petition in this relevant connection. 9 Ex facie, the calculated argument of learned counsel that since the Arbitrator did not follow the due procedure and exceeded its jurisdiction, so the impugned award is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. FAO No.342 of 2008(O & M) 3 10 As is evident from the record that having scanned the material on record in the right perspective, the District Judge, Ferozepur, came to the conclusion that the Arbitrator has duly complied with the provisions of the Act and has dismissed the objection of the appellant-Firm. It is now well settled propositions of law that the arbitratrial award can only be set aside on the grounds as contemplated under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. 11 Learned counsel for the appellant-Firm did not point out any material, much less cogent to contend as to how and in what manner, the Arbitrator misconducted himself and exceeded his jurisdiction. The Arbitrator as well as the District Judge has recorded cogent grounds and negatived the claim of the appellant-Firm. Such order/award cannot, legally be set aside, unless the same are illegal and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out, therefore, the impugned judgement deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12 No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 13 In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore,the instant appeal is hereby dismissed, as such. September 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) neenu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the reporter? Yes/ No