AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 20.07.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the objection petition filed by them against the award dated 19.07.2000 passed by the sole Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 23.12.1995, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short "the PUNSUP") entered into an agreement with M/s. B.P. Rice Mills, Sarhall Road, Tarn Taran, District Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the miller") for milling of paddy to be supplied to it by the PUNSUP and the rice so milled was to be supplied by the miller to the Food Corporation of India on behalf of the PUNSUP. It was provided in the agreement that in case the entire paddy was not milled within the stipulated period, the PUNSUP would be entitled to recover 1.5 times the economic costs of left over paddy from the miller along with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. It was pleaded that as per the agreement, 8892.75 quintals of common variety of paddy in 13682 gunny bags and 3335.80 quintals of fine variety of paddy in 5136 gunny bags wee entrusted to the miller for milling. The miller refused to receive common variety of rice and the PUNSUP was made to shift common variety of paddy to some other place. It was further pleaded that the miller failed in honouring the time clause of the agreement as he had refused to receive and mill 13382 bags of common variety of paddy which caused financial loss to the PUNSUP. Accordingly, the PUNSUP filed a claim petition for the recovery of Rs. 51,14,273/- from the miller as due upto 13.11.1998 along with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. The stand of the PUNSUP was controverted by the miller by filing reply. It was pleaded that the agreement dated 23.12.1995 was not a final and concluded contract and it was only a draft agreement. The fact that the Government had abolished levy on miller procurement was not in the knowledge of both the sides at the time of execution of the agreement and levy of 75% by the Government on miller procurement was the sine-qua-non of the agreement dated 23.12.1995. It was further pleaded that the paddy was stored in its premises w.e.f. 12.10.1995 for the purposes of storing only as the PUNSUP was short of space and no rice miller was ready to accept paddy from the PUNSUP or from any government agency on the previous terms and conditions. The miller never acted upon the agreement dated 23.12.1995 inasmuch as the deposit of security amount, the pre-condition of the agreement, was never made and the PUNSUP had itself repudiated the agreement vide letter dated 04.10.1996. It was further pleaded that the miller was entitled to ground rent at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month and accordingly, it issued a legal notice dated 05.03.1996 in this regard. The other averments were denied and prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. The miller also filed counter-claim for recovery of Rs. 4,85,000/- from the PUNSUP on account of ground rent, watch and ward charges, maintenance and damages.
(3.) THE Tribunal vide award dated 19.07.2000 allowed the claim of the PUNSUP to the extent of Rs. 99,360/- with future interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of award till realization. The counter claim of the miller was dismissed.;