In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.2392 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:28.7.2011 M/s Narang Rice Mills, Ferozepur City and others .....Appellants v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. O.P. Gabba, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellants has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') against the Award dated 8.6.1998 passed by Mr. J.P.S. Puri, Sole Arbitrator- respondent No.3 was dismissed. As per facts of the case, the appellants had entered into an F.A.O. No.2392 of 2010 [2] agreement dated 5.10.1992 with respondents No.1 and 2 for milling of paddy into rice. The respondents No.1 and 2 had supplied 48,193 bags of paddy weighing 31,241-45-000 quintals for milling of paddy into the rice giving yield of 67% to 69% after allowing 2% driage as per statement of accounts. The entire quantity of rice milled was to be supplied by appellant- firm to FCI on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. In pursuance of the agreement the appellants had to execute the contract by 28.2.1993. The appellant-firm did not supply the full quantity of rice as per agreement and committed other irregularities causing a loss to the respondents No.1 and 2. As a result of which a dispute arose between the appellants and respondents No.1 and 2. In view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, respondent No.3 was appointed as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed the award dated 8.6.1998 whereby he awarded interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the amount of `2,51,525.39 from 22.5.1993 to 26.6.1994 and balance amount of `1,18,641.38 along with interest on this amount at the rate of 21% per annum from 27.6.1994 till the date of payment from the appellant-firm and its partners (appellants) (responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm) jointly and severally. The appellants filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Objection petition has been dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment dated 10.8.2009. Hence this appeal by the appellants. I have heard Mr. O.P. Gabba, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and have gone through the records of the case. F.A.O. No.2392 of 2010 [3] The objection petition was filed by the appellants before the learned District Judge, inter alia, on the grounds that (1) whether the dispute is to be decided by the Managing Director or the Arbitrator. As per case of the appellants, Arbitrator was not competent to decide this issue and only the Managing Director was competent. Section 4 of the Arbitration Act deals with this point. A perusal of the order passed by the Arbitrator shows that this point has never been raised by them before the Arbitrator or before the appellate Court. Section 4 of the Arbitration Act prohibits raising all these points in appeal. (2) Whether the agreement executed between the parties was in writing? A perusal of the arbitration file shows that an agreement dated 5.10.1992 was executed between the appellant-firm and the respondent-Corporation. Through the appellant-firm has denied the fact that the agreement in question was reduced into black and white, but in its written reply filed before the Arbitrator, the firm had admitted the execution of agreement between the parties. Moreover, the copy of agreement produced on the arbitration file bears the signatures of Tirath Ram, one of the partners of the firm as well as the District Manager of the Corporation. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to reason that a huge quantity of paddy would be supplied to the firm without any agreement between the parties, particularly, when the respondent-Corporation is a Government undertaking. So when there was a valid agreement between the parties, the Corporation rightly appointed the Arbitrator. (3) Finally, it is apparent from the record available on this file that the firm is an unregistered firm. The rights and liabilities of an unregistered F.A.O. No.2392 of 2010 [4] firm have been dealt with under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which reads as under:- “69. Effect of non-registration.- No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect.- (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or (b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to realise the property of an insolvent partner. (4) This Section shall not apply,- F.A.O. No.2392 of 2010 [5] (a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which this Act extends, or whose places of business in the said territories, are situated in areas to which, by notification under Section 56, this Chapter does not apply, or (b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, or outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim.” In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the firm was a registered firm nor any finding has been given that the firm was a registered firm. Therefore, they are not entitled to raise the dispute before the Arbitrator or any other Court. It is well-settled that while hearing objections against the award, the Court need not re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties before the Arbitrator in order to substitute its own opinion. A perusal of the record reveals that the Arbitrator had afforded reasonable opportunity to the parties to plead their case by producing the evidence they wanted to bring on record. Apparently, there was no illegality or impropriety in the award given by respondent No.3. Besides, the award rendered by respondent No.3 was not, in any way, F.A.O. No.2392 of 2010 [6] against the public policy. All the documents produced by the parties were taken into account by the Arbitrator and the award was made after considering the submissions made by them. In view of this, the learned District Judge was justified in dismissing the objection petition filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act against the award dated 8.6.1998 passed by respondent No.3. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. July 28, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*