JAIN RICE MILLS, DHURI, DISTRICT SANGRUR Vs. PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD ,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by the District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the objections filed on behalf of the appellant-miller under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "1996 Act") have been rejected on the ground that the same have not been accompanied by an affidavit. Mr.Mukand Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that before the arbitrator, Markfed had filed the claim of Rs. 22.00 lacs and thereafter supplementary claim was filed by reducing the claim to Rs. 16.00 lacs, but, however, vide order dated 08.10.2002, the supplementary claim was withdrawn. In essence, the Markfed restricted the claim to Rs. 22.00 lacs. The arbitrator, instead of pondering upon this aspect, decided the reference by taking into consideration the supplementary/revised claim which was withdrawn. The said claim was assailed by filing objections and the Court below remanded back the matter to the arbitrator to decide the matter afresh by taking into consideration the main claim. He further submits that despite being a specific direction in the order, the arbitrator has again, vide award dated 19.12.2006, taken into consideration the withdrawn/revised/supplementary claim and objections have not been decided on merits, but have been rejected on the ground that the same were not accompanied by affidavit.

(2.) Mr.Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that it is second round of litigation at the behest of the miller and amounts to adoption of delaying tactics, which should not be permissible. The award is in consonance with the claim and rightly so, the objections have been filed. Even otherwise, the objections, as per the High Court Orders and Rules, much less, provisions of the Act, were required to be accompanied by an affidavit.

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court in Punjab State Industrial Dev.Corporation Ltd. Versus Sunil K. Kansal, 2013 7 RCR(Civ) 2606 while pondering upon a question arose for determination as to whether the Court entertaining the objections under Section 34 of the Act should frame the issues or not or whether the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code would apply. This Court, while answering the question, observed this:-