FAO No. 3815 of 2010 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3815 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2011 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another ...Appellants vs M/s Bhagwati Rice Mills, Barnala, and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby the objections filed by the appellants against the award of the Arbitrator were dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the claim on account of non return of the rice or the paddy which was supplied to the miller for the purpose of shelling was made before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator recorded a finding in his award that it had no jurisdiction to go into the issue in terms of the provisions of the agreement but still the same has been dealt with on merits. The award of the Arbitrator being totally contrary to the terms of the agreement, was liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The Arbitrator while dealing with the claim made by the parties recorded a specific finding that the dispute between the parties was subsequently settled. The miller deposited ` 71,54,869.60 and statement of Shri Darshan Singh on behalf of the appellants was recorded to that effect. Document Annexure C-14 was also produced on record which corroborated the statement made. The relevant para from the award is extracted below:- “The statement of accounts, furnished by the respondent miller indicates that 58758 bags weighing 38192.70 qtls. were lying in joint custody FAO No. 3815 of 2010 (2) of the miller. Out of which 32245 bags weighing 20538.53.700 qtl. was issued for milling, rice due was 13760.82.000 qtl. that delivered was also 13760.82, balance paddy 26515 bags weighing 1689.30.900 was sold by the claimant to the respondent in open sale policy and through tender, against release orders. The miller deposited Rs. 71,54,869.60. In this way, the entire account had been settled between the parties. This was also stated by Shri Darshan Singh witness of the claimant. Annexure C-14 also makes the position clear.” Once the Arbitrator had decided the issue in dispute and the amount due on account of paddy or rice which was duly accepted by the appellants there remained no dispute which was required to be adjudged by the Managing Director, even if the terms of the agreement are to be considered. The plea sought to be raised is hyper technical whereas in substance the PUNSUP has already received the value of the paddy which was retained by the miller. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. As there is no merit in the appeal, consequently the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 19.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge