IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1972 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on 11.11.2010. M/s.Krishna Rice Mills,Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur --Appellant vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Chandigarh and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Mrigank Sharma,Advocate,for the appellant Mrs.J.K.Gurna,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, by which objection filed under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,'the Act') against the arbitral award dated 13.2.2004 has been dismissed. The only point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Arbitrator could decide all the matters (except as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract). It is submitted that as per clause 6 (iii), in case of any short-fall, the respondents are entitled to 1-1/2 times of the economic costs of paddy and 21% interest. It is further submitted that the said amount of paddy at the rate of 1-1/2 times the economic costs or 21% interest has to be charged by the order of the Managing Director, which shall be final between the parties. Therefore, the dispute between the parties falls within “the excepted matter” which could not have been referred to the Arbitrator much-less to be decided by him. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have issued the Instructions dated 6.6.2000 by which it was made clear that in case of any short fall, neither economic costs at the rate of 1-1/2 times nor 21% interest would be chargeable. The miller shall be liable to pay the amount of shortfall. It is thus, submitted that had it been a case of determination of 1-1/2 time the economic costs of paddy or 21% interest, definitely the jurisdiction lies with the Managing Director of the Corporation/respondent but after the Instructions dated 6.6.2000, the Arbitrator was to decide about the shortfall and the amount payable in that regard. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the ordinary circumstances, where the Instructions dated 6.6.2000 are not applicable, the matter would fall within the “excepted matter” and the Arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to decide about1/1/2 times the economic costs of paddy or 21% interest payable on the short fall of the amount of the paddy, but in view of the Instructions where neither economic cost or 21% interest is chargeable, the Arbitrator can decide the issue of shortfall and the amount payable by the miller in that regard. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the order of the Court below and as such, this appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs 11.11.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge