M/S.KRISHNA RICE & GENRAL MILL THROUGH ITS PARTNER ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLIES CONTROLLER, YAMUNA NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.10.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the objection petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') against the Award dated 17.9.2008 passed by Mr. Baljit Kularia, Deputy Director, Food & Supplies - cum-Sole Arbitrator, Haryana, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 2) was dismissed.

(2.) As per facts of the case, the Appellant had entered into an agreement dated 8.10.2001 with the District Food and Supplies Controller, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (Respondent No. 1) for milling of rice. As per the contention of Respondent No. 1, the Appellant had not supplied the milled rice as agreed by it (Appellant) during the stipulated period. The Appellant, according to Respondent No. 1, was deficient of 3266.64 quintals CMR (custom milled rice) upto the contractual period which was later on extended upto 31.7.2002 by Respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the Appellant supplied CMR as per directions of Respondent No. 1 to Food Corporation of India and deficiency was reduced to 989.33 quintals rice. The value of deficient rice was Rs. 10,31,149/-. The Appellant had deposited the entire amount of the outstanding rice with Respondent No. 1 claimed upto 31.1.2008. As per Respondent No. 1, a sum of Rs. 8,69,122/- was outstanding against the Appellant on account of interest. As such, Respondent No. 1 claimed adjudication of the dispute before the Arbitrator (Respondent No. 2). The Arbitrator passed the Award dated 17.9.2008 holding the Appellant liable to pay an amount of Rs. 8,14,628/- upto 31.7.2008. The Appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Objection petition has been dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment dated 14.10.2010. Hence this appeal by the Appellant.

(3.) I have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the Respondents and have gone through the records of the case.