Shree Krishna Rice Mills vs The Punjab State Co-Op. Supply And ... on 14 March, 2002

1. This order shall dispose of fifteen revision petitions bearing No. 1780 of 2001 (M/s Shree Krishna Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh); 1781 of 2001 (M/s Amrik Singh Joginder Singh v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1782 of 2001 (M/s Ram Chand Sohan Lal v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh), 1784 of 2001 (M/s Singla Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1785 of 2001 (M/s Bajaj Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1786 of 2001 (M/s Sanjiv Jain & Company v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1787 of 2001 (M/s Jai Bharat Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1788 of 2001 (M/s Shiv Shanker Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1789 of 2001 (M/s Arora Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1790 of 2001 (M/s Shah Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Fereration Ltd., Chandigarh), 1791 of 2001 (M/s Dashmesh Enterprises v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1792 of 2001 (M/s Pardeep Rice Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), 1793 of 2001 (M/s Khalsa Rice & General Mills v. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd, Chandigarh), 1794 of 2001 (M/s Karnal Rice Mills v. the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh), as common question of law and fact is involved and all these revisions have arisen from the common judgment dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur.

3. Alleging these facts, the Markfed claimed various amounts as the alleged damages/loss/compensation and also the amount of interest @ 21% per annum. In this manner, the Markfed claimed 1.5 times economic cost alongwith 21% per annum. In this manner, the Markfed claimed 1.5 times economic cost alongwith 21% interest alleging that losses had been suffered by it because of the petitioner firm.

4. That Managing Director of Markfed, vide order dated 3.4.1997, appointed Shri P.K.. Chatopadhaya as Arbitrator for the adjudication of the alleged dispute between the petitioner firm and the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (Markfed).