FAO No. 510 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on March 02,2010. M/S.Des Raj Wadhwa Industries, Muktsar -- Appellant Vs. The Punjab State Coop Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd, Muktsar and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.A.K.Khunger,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Vikas Chatrath,Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Addl.District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar, dated 28.4.2007 dismissing the objections filed by the plaintiff under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') against arbitral award dated 15.7.2003. A legal relationship came into being between the parties to the dispute in terms of an agreement dated 20.5.1999 which ultimately became a bone of contention between them and was adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator allowing the claim of respondent and rejecting the counter claim of the appellant vide his award dated 15.7.2003. Aggrieved, the appellant FAO No. 510 of 2008 (O&M) 2 filed objections under Section 34 of the Act which too, were dismissed by the Civil Court on 28.4.2007. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant has been noticed by this Court in its order dated 26.9.2008 is that the respondent could not have charged both revised enhanced rate of the left over commodities and interest. This argument was raised before the Court below as well which has been thoroughly dealt with by the learned Court below in para Nos. 19 and 20 of its judgment which reads as under:- “Clause 4 of the agreement dated 20.5.1999, which was entered into between the applicant and the respondent makes it clear that the miller shall undertake shelling of paddy at the rates fixed by Government from time to time. Meaning thereby, the rate quoted by the respondent was subject to the final approval of the government, which was to be fixed from time to time. So, if the arbitrator has awarded the revised rates, which was approved by the government then, it was no ground to set aside the award, as it is not, in any way, opposed to the public policy of India. Awarding of interest on the late delivery of rice and the late deposit of money towards the cost after the cut-off date is only a natural corollary of business dealings. Moreover, it has been clearly stated in clause 9 of the agreement that in the event of failure to supply rice within a stipulated period, the applicant/objector shall be liable for an interest at the rate of 21% for the first year of the default and at the rate of 30% for the subsequent years on the custom milled rice fixed by the Govt. of India it becomes payable till its actual realization towards the left over amount/stocks of paddy. So, the arbitrator has not committed any wrong FAO No. 510 of 2008 (O&M) 3 while awarding the interest”. It is now well settled that while hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act, the Civil Court cannot sit over as the appellate Court over the award of the Arbitrator. The findings that have been recorded and are referred to here-in-above, are well in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any provision of law to challenge the finding recorded to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Court below and even by the Arbitrator. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. March 02,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge