M/S Haqiqat Rice Mill & Ors v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn Ltd & Anr

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

This is an appeal preferred against the order dated August 21, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act').

¶2Vide the impugned order, the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was held that the burden was entirely upon the miller-respondents in the arbitration proceedings and the appellants herein to show that the award was not received by the miller-respondents within the time limit to prefer the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that since the miller-respondent in the arbitration proceedings had raised the contention that the award was received much after the expiry of the time period for filing of the application under Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, the

burden of proo on the date whe

3.

In to show that th Section 34 of t to shift the bur upon them to s the stipulated p award. Therefo that the delay i not be condon limitation. She application tha statutory stipul

4.

L that it was the received by the

5.

L arbitration proc been taken in t beyond the tim application for

6.

T for the parties a

f was on miller-respondents to pr en they were agitating to have rec nstead of corroborating its argume he award was received beyond the 1996 Act, the miller-responde rden of proof on the claimants and how that the award was received period for filing of the application ore, Additional District Judge, Ch in filing the application under Sec ned and the Section 34 applic e also recorded that no ground h at the miller-respondents had r lated time for filing of the applicat earned counsel appearing on beh e duty of the claimants to show w e miller-respondents. earned counsel appearing on be ceedings and the respondents here the Section 34 application to sho me stipulated for filing of Section 3 condonation of delay has been fil his Court has considered the subm and perused the material on record

rove that the same was received ceived the same. ent with documentary evidence the period of challenge under ents in the Arbitration had tried d argued that it was incumbent by the miller-respondents after n for setting aside the ex parte handigarh came to the finding ction 34 of the 1996 Act could cation was clearly barred by had been taken in Section 34 received the said award after tion, half of the appellants submits when and how the award was ehalf of the claimants in the ein submits that no ground had w that the award was received 34 application. Furthermore, no led by the appellants. missions of the learned counsel d.

7.

It Section 34 of th contend that th application und condonation of by the appellan

8.

L of the Hon'bl Surendra, Dev 80 and Vishwa SCC 657. The Tribunal in exc and 34 of the A been able to sh of 1996 Act ca 1940. The se appellants, refe speaking award arbitrator wher fails to see ho appellants in th

9.

T decision of Co Krishna Rice Federation Lt

t is apparent that no ground had he 1996 Act filed by the miller-re he award was received beyond th der Section 34 of the 1996 Act. F f delay in filing of the Section 34 nts. earned counsel appearing for the le Apex Court passed in Foo vendra and Mahendra Transport anath Sood Vs. Union of India an first judgment refers to the issue cluded matters. The said judgment Arbitration Act, 1940. Learned cou how how the limitation stipulated an be overcome by citing this deci cond decision referred to by ers to Section 30 of the Arbitratio d and also regarding the issue of c re time is made the essence of t ow the said decision supports or he instant case. he next decision cited by learned oordinate Bench passed in CR N Mills Vs. The Punjab State C td on March 14, 2002. In that cas

taken in the application under espondents-appellants herein to he stipulated time for filing the Furthermore, no application for application has been preferred appellants refers to judgments od Corporation of India Vs. t Co. reported in 2003(4) SCC nd another reported in 1989(1) e of jurisdiction of the arbitral t was passed under Sections 20 unsel for the appellants has not d under Section 34 application ision under the Arbitration Act, the learned counsel for the n Act, 1940 regarding the non-construction of contracts by the the contract. This Court again r corroborates the case of the d counsel for the appellants is No.1780 of 2001 titled Shree Co-op Supply and Marketing se, the Coordinate Bench came

to the conclusio arbitration sinc original agreem produced befor to the conclus interest were is Agreement and Co.op Supply need to refer th

10.

T corroborates th that the period 1996 Act can b being brought o beyond the tim the 1996 Act.

11.

In appeal being FA

12.

Pe

JANUARY 0 Prince

Whether speak Whether report

on that the dispute in question wa ce the Arbitrator himself had obs ment for arbitration or the certifi re him, the reference was not valid sion that the disputes regarding ssues covered under Clauses 5 an d could be decided by the Man and Marketing Federation Ltd. (M he same to the Arbitrator. his Court again fails to see how he argument of learned counsel f d of limitation for filing an applic be extended beyond the stipulate on record to show that the award me stipulated for preferring an ap n the light of the discussion m AO No.1630 of 2014 is dismissed ending application(s), if any, shal

9, 2025

king/reasoned :

table :

as not required to be referred to served in his order that as the ed copy thereof, had not been d. The Coordinate Bench came economic cost and award of nd 6 read with Clause 18 of the naging Director, Punjab State MARKFED) and there was no w this judgment supports and for the appellants on the issue cation under Section 34 of the d period without any evidence d was supplied to the appellants pplication under Section 34 of made hereinabove, the present d. ll also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

FAO-1630-2014(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1630-2014(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 09, 2025 M/S HAQIQAT RICE MILL AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS Versus PUNJABoSTATEoCIVILoSUPPLIESoCORP.oLTD.oANDoANOTHER o o o o o o …Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondents.