FAO No. 5394 of 2009 ( O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 5394 of 2009 ( O&M) Date of decision: November 13, 2009 Indian Oil Corporation Limited ........ Appellant Versus M/s Amarjit Singh and Company .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. C.M. No. 26688 CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making good the deficiency in the Court fee. Allowed as prayed for. . C.M. No. 26690 CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 134 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. sands disposed of accordingly. C.M. No. 26691 CII of 2009 FAO No. 5394 of 2009 ( O&M) 2 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. sands disposed of accordingly. Appeal This is an appeal against the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act) for setting aside the Award dated 05.03.2004, has been dismissed. The facts of the case in short are that as per agreement dated 07.12.1998, a contract for handling and transportation work of High Speed Diesel (HSD) storage tanks installed at PDC Pampore Unit-I and II, was executed between the appellant and respondent No. 1 to maintain the tank and for its supervision. As per the work order dated 31.03.2009, the work was allotted to the respondent on compliance of formalities including depositing of security etc. The respondent No. 1 was to be paid Rs.0.61 paise per kilo litre/per kilo meter ex Jammu, handling charges were fixed at Rs.26,000/- per month and the respondent was allowed a handling loss of 1.12%. The contract, in question, was to commence from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. That on the basis of so called contract, respondent No. 1 claimed reference to the Arbitrator, who vide his award dated 05.03.2004, awarded an amount of Rs.18.31 lacs to be refunded to the respondents. While challenging the aforesaid award, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-contractor was negligent in performing his part of the agreement and, thus, caused loss to the appellant to FAO No. 5394 of 2009 ( O&M) 3 the tune of Rs.38.05 lacs. It was argued that in spite of the Arbitrator coming to the conclusion that the respondent-contractor was negligent and was required to pay the loss as per the agreement, has erred in deciding issue No. 3 against the appellant. It was also submitted that there was no reciprocal duty on the appellant. Non-taking of measurement could not make appellant liable for 50% of the loss. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. The Arbitrator held that during the period of contract, the appellant failed to inspect and carry out the measurements of the product at the beginning of every month as required under the contract and as such, the appellant was equally negligent for non-performance of the contract. It is a settled proposition of law that the Arbitral award can be set aside only on the ground as detailed in Section 34 (2) of the 1996 Act. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Thus, there is no ground, which may warrants this Court to interfere in the impugned award and order passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the objection petition. The same is legal and valid. There is no patent illegality or irregularity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 13, 2009 mohan