AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.
CM No. 15410.CII of 2010
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No. 15411.CII of 2010
For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO No. 3317 of 2010
This is appeal challenging judgment dated 27.8.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh thereby disposing of objections filed by both parties u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) against award dated 7.1.2005 passed by Arbitrator respondent No. 2.
Appellants had supplied paddy to respondent No. 1 for milling. Dispute arose between the parties regarding short as well as late supply of rice by respondent No. 1 to the appellants. The dispute was referred to Arbitrator respondent No. 2 who made award dated 7.1.2005 awarding Rs. 2,73,820/- in favour of appellants payable by respondent No. 1 with interest @ 18 % per annum with effect from 1.1.2001 till payment.
Appellants as well as respondent No. 1 preferred objections u/s 34 of the Act against the said award. Learned Additional District Judge vide impugned common judgment dated 27.8.2009 dismissed the objections filed by both the parties except modifying the rate of future interest to 9 % per annum with effect from 7.1.2005, the date of award till recovery, at the instance of respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
In so far as principal amount claimed by the appellants is concerned, same has been substantially allowed by the Arbitrator except that amount of Rs. 75,000/- deposited as security by respondent No. 1 has been deducted from the claimed amount as per accounts settled by the parties themselves. Consequently, there is practically no grievance left against the claim of the principal amount of the appellants.
Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Arbitrator has arbitrarily rejected the appellants'' claim of Rs. 62,918/- being interest on late delivery of rice by respondent No. 1. It was pointed out that the Arbitrator has observed in the award that the said claim was not within the scope and ambit of arbitration and decision of Managing Director of appellant No. 1 thereon is final as per agreement and therefore, liberty should be granted to the appellants to get the said claim adjudicated upon by Managing Director of appellant No. 1. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of this Court namely District Food and Supplies Controller, Moga v. Aggarwal Rice Mills, Baghapurana, Distt. Moga, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 756 and M/s Sukhbir Singh and Company v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited through its District Manager, Ferozepur (Markfed) and Anr. 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 760.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. Prima facie the contention does have some merit. However, perusal of the Arbitrator''s award reveals that relevant column in the agreement between the parties regarding time limit for supply of rice by respondent No. 1 to the appellants has been left blank. It would mean that no time limit was fixed in the agreement for supply of rice by respondent No. 1 to the appellants. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was delay in the supply of rice by respondent No. 1 to the appellants entitling them to any interest on this count. In this view of the matter, it would be a futile exercise to refer back the parties to Managing Director of appellant No. 1 for adjudication of the aforesaid claim of the appellants. The paddy was supplied in the year 1997-98. It appears that the matter was referred to the Arbitrator in the year 2001 as claim petition of the appellants before the Arbitrator is dated 12.3.2001 as mentioned in the award. The award is dated 7.1.2005. Judgment of learned Additional District Judge under challenge is of 27.8.2009. Thus, almost 12 years have expired since the paddy was supplied by the appellants to respondent No. 1. The amount involved towards interest of late supply of rice is also not heavy. For this added reason as well, I decline the prayer of counsel for the appellants for liberty to get this claim adjudicated upon by Managing Director of appellant No. 1. As already noticed, the said exercise would also be an exercise in futility for the reasons already recorded.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed in limine.