C.R. No. 4870 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4870 of 1996 Date of decision: 7.7.2010 Thappar Rice and Ginning Mills Ahmedgarh and others ........ Petitioners Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies, Corporation Limited and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simran, Advocate for Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.3.1994, whereby the Award dated 15.1.1988, has been made rule of court and the order dated 16.8.1996, whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and affirmed the order dated 2.3.1994, passed by the learned trial Court. The parties entered into an agreement on 23.10.1985, for shelling of paddy. The respondent was to pay Rs.6.50 per quintal as shelling charges. There was a clause in the agreement that in case of any loss to the paddy in transit or shortage, the respondent-Corporation was to recover 1½ times of economic cost of paddy or rice towards the shortfall. Since, there was a dispute regarding extent of rice supplied to the respondent, therefore, such disputes were referred for arbitration to C.R. No. 4870 of 1996 -2- Shri B.S. Basur, Additional Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation. The respondent claimed Rs.14,11,953.35 Ps on various counts. However, the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,521.82P alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is the said Award which was made rule of the Court, vide orders impugned in the present revision. In the present revision petition the challenge is to that part of the Award, where the Arbitrator has awarded Rs.15,600/- in respect of empty bags; Rs.55,000/- on account of quality cuts and a sum of Rs.1,76,921.44 Ps towards ginning cost. It is alleged to be without any legal basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Arbitrator has announced an exparte Award. Such Award has been rendered by the Arbitrator without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I have examined the arbitration record. It shows that on 20.10.1987, notice was served by Arbitrator under registered A.D. Post to the petitioner. The acknowledgment card duly signed by the representative of the petitioner is available at page 4 of the record. Subsequently, notice dated 11.11.1987, was issued by the Arbitrator, giving opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement. Such notice has been received by one Anil Kaushal on 11.11.1987. Such document is Ex.R-2 and is available at page 22 of the record. In view of the said fact it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend or appear before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is master of law and facts. All disputes inter- parties which is the subject matter of an agreement are to be decided by an Arbitrator. Therefore, amount awarded by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. C.R. No. 4870 of 1996 -3- In view of the above, I do not find any patent irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below which may warrant any interference by this Court. Dismissed. July 7, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE