The agreement companytained an arbitration clause for resolving all disputes arising between the parties in relation to the agreement.
37 of 2010 by which the execution petition relating to arbitration award dated 01.06.2001 was dismissed.
It was, accordingly, dismissed.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the Executing Court.
The respondents did number pay the awarded amount to the appellants and, therefore, the appellant filed Execution Petition No.37/2010 under Section 36 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar for enforcement of the award against the respondents.
The arbitrator embarked upon the reference made to him by the parties.
The respondents on being served filed reply to the execution application and raised certain factual objections purporting to be under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The respondents duly acknowledged the receipt of paddy from the appellant on 27.11.1995 and 06.12.1995.
3602 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.07.12 163807 IST appellants herein and affirmed the order dated Reason 03.11.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in Execution SR.
By order dated 03.11.2012, the Executing Court upheld the objections raised by the respondents and, in companysequence, dismissed the appellants execution application.
The respondents, as the records indicate.
According to the appellant, since the respondents companymitted breach of the agreement because they were number able to perform their part of the agreement, the appellant became entitled, in terms of the agreement, to recover from the respondents 1 1 times economic companyt of balance paddy, 2 the companyt of balance bags and sales tax 4.4 thereon, besides TDS on income tax 2.34, and 3 other recovery.
Sections 35 and Section 36 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time are relevant for this appeal.
In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in this appeal, few relevant facts need mention infra.
Thereafter the respondents companyld deliver 710.00 quintals of fine variety of rice and 14441.04.200 quintals of IR 8 variety of rice in 1075 bags after 30.06.1996.
Since the respondents failed to process and deliver the full quantity of rice in terms of agreement to the FCI much less within the time framed, it caused money losses to the appellant in addition to sustaining the damages due to number delivery of the rice.
Heard Mr. Ashish Wad, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhishek Vikas, learned companynsel for the respondents.
The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed revision being Civil Revision No.
Respondent No.
3602 of 2013 before the High Court.
The respondents, however, companyld only process and deliver to the FCI 27950.75 quintals of fine variety rice and 22955.32 quintals of IR 8 variety of rice till 30.06.1996.
01.01.1999 till realization in appellants favour and against the respondents.
The respondents, felt aggrieved of the award, filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act and questioned its legality and companyrectness before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
On 01.01.1996, the appellant and Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement.
2 to 4.
In terms of this agreement, the appellant was to give their paddy to the respondents, who were to process the paddy in their Rice Mill and the resultant rice produced after processing paddy were to be delivered to the Food Corporation of India FCI for and on behalf of the appellant by the respondents.
The appellant accordingly gave numberice to the respondents requesting them for referring the disputes, which had arisen between them to the Arbitrator.
By order dated 04.06.2009, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application and upheld the award.
Subject to this Part an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
It is against this order, the appellant claimant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
The respondents also filed one application praying therein for a direction to the appellant to produce the statement of accounts and the transactions done pursuant to the agreement in question.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
1 is a partnership firm whose partners are respondent Nos.
The respondents acceded to the appellants request and accordingly the disputes were referred to the sole Arbitrator one Mr. O. P. Garg.
The firm is engaged in the business of running a rice Mill in Jalandhar.
The appellant is a State owned Corporation engaged in supply of civil companymodities in the State of Punjab.
though claimed to have filed appeal in the High Court but did number pursue the appeal and hence the order dated 04.06.2009 of the Additional District Judge and, in companysequence, the award dated 01.06.2001 became final and attained finality.
The parties filed their respective claims and adduced evidence in support of their stand.
On 01.06.2001, the Arbitrator delivered a reasoned award.
The Arbitrator allowed the appellants claim in part and accordingly passed a money award for Rs.1024847.15 with interest payable at the rate of 21 w.e.f.
