Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs M/S Baba Naga Rice & General Mills And Ors on 4 July, 2016
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
FAO No.7725 of 2015 (O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.7725 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision:04.07.2016
Punjab State Civil Supplied Corporation Limited and another ... Appellants
Vs.
M/s Baba Naga Rice & General Mills and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellants.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
C.M.No.24238-CII of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 575 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M.No.24240-CII of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M.No.24239-CII of 2015 The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Legal 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2016 00:08:21 ::: FAO No.7725 of 2015 (O&M) {2} representatives of respondent No.1(A) and 1(C) namely Raj Pal son of Gian Chand and Vijay Kumar son of Raj Pal, as mentioned in the application are ordered to be brought on record for the purpose of prosecuting the present appeal.
FAO No.7725 of 2015 (O&M)
Appellant-PUNSUP is aggrieved of the findings rendered by the Objecting Court dismissing the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act"), whereby, counter claim of the respondents has been allowed and its claim has been rejected.
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that claim was sought on account of late delivery of paddy but the Arbitrator, much less, objecting Court had not taken into consideration the aforementioned fact and rather awarded interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 01.12.1998, which is not permissible in law as the claimant had failed to substantiate its claim.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book and of the view that PUNSUP has miserably failed to prove the alleged late delivery of paddy, therefore, rightly so rejected by the objecting Court. As regards the counter claim of the respondents, evidence has been placed on record to prove such fact, i.e., element of labour charges and other payment of rent etc. No doubt that the Arbitrator though has to examine the material and documentary evidence for the purpose of granting interest or damages but interest, in my view, is in accordance with the provisions of 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2016 00:08:22 ::: FAO No.7725 of 2015 (O&M) {3} Section 31(7) of 1996 Act and thus, I do no find any illegality and perversity in the aforementioned findings upheld by the Objecting Court.
It is now a settled law that as to under what circumstances the award has to be interfered with. The question which has now been raised in the aforementioned appeal has already been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, wherein it has been laid down that until and unless the award suffers from illegality as statutorily prescribed under Section 31 (3) of the Act, the same cannot be interfered with. In this context I intend to refer the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49 and Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd. Vs. J. M. Combines (2015) 5 SCC 698. In the aforementioned judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had culled out the ratio decidendi by holding that until and unless there is error apparent on the face of record or the arbitrator has not followed statutory legal position, it is only in these circumstances it would be justified interfering with the award. The High Court should not act as a Court of appeal and reappraise the material/evidence and embarked on a path by substitution in its own view. The arbitrator has dealt with the dispute which was contemplated and was within the scope of it.
In my view the award of the Arbitrator does not suffer from any illegality, in as much as, the Arbitrator who is expert has dealt with the matter and decided the claim of respective claimants to the parties to the lis.
It is now a settled law that the Arbitrator is the sole judge of 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2016 00:08:22 ::: FAO No.7725 of 2015 (O&M) {4} quality and quantity of the evidence before him and decide on the basis of the available evidence.
In my view, no error of law arise from the award as well as order impugned. The award is perfect and justified.
There is no merit in the aforementioned appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 04, 2016 savita 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2016 00:08:22 :::