C.R. No.5862 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5862 of 2007 Date of Decision.03.10.2011 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PUNSUP), Chandigarh through IPS Malhotra, Manager (Legal and Arbitration), PUNSUP, SCO 36- 40, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh .....Petitioner Versus M/s Vaishno Rice Mills, Mohan Ke Road, Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur through its partner Satpal .....Respondent Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The civil revision is filed against an order passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur receiving the application filed by M/s Vaishno Rice Mills to deposit Rs.70,800/-, the amount awarded by an Arbitrator through an award dated 13.10.2006. The application was allowed and amount of Rs.70,800/- was directed to be paid to PUNSUP, which is the petitioner, challenging the order stating that such award itself is subject of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This Court had directed the petitioner to file the details of institution of proceedings for setting aside the award by an order dated 15.11.2007 but till date it has not been done. 2. Under the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an award passed is executable as if it were a decree and if an amount has been deposited by a person, who has been directed to pay C.R. No.5862 of 2007 -2- certain sum through an award, the same would operate to discharge the liability to the extent to which the award provides for. If the Court had, therefore, directed the amount to be deposited to the credit of the petitioner, no objection could be raised against the same and it will be always possible for the petitioner to contend that the amount awarded by the Arbitrator was not sufficient and that the petitioner was entitled to receive more amount. The direction for deposit itself does not determine the proceedings or take away rights of the petitioner to challenge the award. There is no error in the order passed by the District Judge and the intervention sought through the civil revision petition is misconceived. 3. The civil revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 03, 2011 Pankaj*