- (1.) This petition is filed against the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Appellate Court, setting aside the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Arbitrator. The brief facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioners, are that they stored 48341 bags weighing 16919.35 quintals of paddy for the purpose of milling with respondent No. 1 who failed to supply the rice as per the terms and conditions and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The paddy was given only for the purpose of milling and is owned by the petitioners. Since it is a perishable item, the petitioner filed an application to the Arbitrator to allow them to dispose of the stock. However, the order of the Arbitrator has been set aside by the Appellate Court.
(2.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that as per Clause 11 of the earlier agreement dated 24.01.2011, the quantity of the paddy milled less by the miller during the month will be shifted to other millers at the risk and cost of the miller and there is no clause in the agreement which authorize the petitioners to sell the paddy milled less and since there is no such clause in the agreement, therefore, the Arbitrator had no authority to allow the petitioners to dispose of the paddy milled less.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.;