- (1.) The appellant-PUNSUP is aggrieved of the order dated 09.03.2010, whereby objection filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, has been allowed and the award of the Arbitrator dated 10.07.2000, has been set aside.
(2.) Mr. Karan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits, that Rice Miller did not take any objection vis-a-vis jurisdiction of the Arbitrator as the claim containing the certain relief, which according to them, was falling within the Excepted Clause, thus deemed to have waived the right in view of the provision of Section 4 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in M/s Gupta Rice Mill (P) Ltd. Vs. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and another, 2013 3 RCR(Civ) 371.
(3.) He further submits that in objection, the Objecting Court called upon the parties to lead evidence afresh, in essence, supplemented the evidence already led before the Arbitrator. This procedure is unknown to the cannons of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Objecting Court does not have any jurisdiction to sit in appeal while dealing with the objection, yet by giving certain observation has examined as if it was the Court of appeal, thus, the findings rendered by the Objecting Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus prays for setting aside of the order under challenge.;