Rajesh Bindal J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections filed by the Appellants against the award of the Arbitrator were dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants raised two -fold arguments, namely, that after the paddy had been entrusted to Respondent No. 1 for milling, he having failed to mill the entire paddy, part of the same was lifted back, which was short. The miller claimed that it was on account of driage of the paddy during the course of storage in the mill. The claim made by the Appellants was that driage had to be granted on the rice and not on the paddy. Second submission was made with regard to refund of security deposit as has been directed by the Arbitrator. It was submitted that on account of violation of any of the conditions of contract, the security was liable to be forfeited. There was apparent error in the award of the Arbitrator, whereby he directed for refund of the security. The aforesaid objections raised before the court below were dismissed as the court found that none of them fell within the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as no fault could be pointed out in the arbitration proceedings.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the Appellants, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. In case, the paddy had been stored in the premises of the miller and the same was taken back on account of his failure to mill the entire paddy, during the interregnum there is driage. In case after taking care of that driage, the rest of the paddy had been returned by the miller, no fault could be found with the same. The contention raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants that driage had to be given on the rice is totally misconceived, as even if the miller was to deliver rice shelled from the paddy, its quantity is always calculated after taking care of the driage in paddy.;