IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, TARN TARAN.

CASE NO.________________
DATE OF FILING._____________
DATE OF DECISION______________

M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS, PATTI ………..OBJECTOR/APPLICANT

VERSUS

DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB CO-OP ………RESPONDENTS

(APPLICATION U/S 34 OF ARBITRATION & CONCIALITION

ACT,1996)
INDEX

SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES. COURT FEE

1. PETITION 2-9
2. DUPLICATE PETITION 10 - 17
3. AFFIDAVIT 18 - 23
4. FORM OF ADDRESS
5. POWER OF ATTORNEY
6. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
7. APP U/O 7 R14 /PROCESS FEE -

……………OBJECTOR/APPLICANT

Through counsel
DATE:

PLACE: TARN TARAN MOHAN ARORA

ADVOCATE
(M) 98761-82455

IN THE COURT OF HON`BLE DISTRICT JUDGE,TARN

TARAN

IN THE MATTER OF :
 M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS, AMRITSAR ROAD,PATTI DISTRICT
TARN TARAN THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER NAMELY SH.
SUBHASH CHANDER S/O SH. KHARAITI LAL AGED ____ YEARS.
………OBJECTOR/APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY &

MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, NOW IN DISTRICT TARN
TARAN.
2. PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED, PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR 35-B,
CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. SH. GURKIRAT KIRPAL SINGH, ARBITARTOR OF PUNJAB CO-
OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PLOT
NO. 4, SECTOR 35-B, CHANDIGARH.

……….RESPONDENTS

OBJECTIONS/APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34

OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED
04.03.2016 (ANNEXURE A-1) PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 SH. GURKIRAT KIRPAL
SINGH
-------X------

SIR,
It is respectfully submitted as under:-

1. That the applicant/objector was partnership concern and Sh.

Subhash Chander being one of the partners of the
applicant/objector firm is filing the present petition on behalf of
firm. Moreover, he is well conversant with the facts of the instant
case.
2. That the respondents no.1 and 2 was known as MARKFED and the
respondent no.1 is the branch office and respondent no. 2 which is
the head office of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 is the
managing director of respondent no. 1 who passed the award on
behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2. Respondent no. 1 and 2 acts as
procurement agency on behalf of Food Corporation Of India for
procurement of food grains i.e. wheat and paddy in different
mandi`s of Punjab.

3. That defendants entered into an agreement dated 21.11.1994 with

the applicant/objector firm whereby the applicant was to mill the
paddy supplied by the respondents and to deliver the rice to the
Food Corporation of India (FCI). 16918 bags of paddy were stored
in the premises of applicant/objector,out of which,540 bags were
issued for milling. There was loss in the weight of paddy on account
of 2% driage.250 bags containing 237,25 quintals of rice were
delivered with a balance of 0.10 kgs of rice as the MarkFed shifted
14594 bags. Similarly, 28603 bags of fine paddy were stored, out of
which 12359 bags were issued for milling. There was loss of 160.58
quintals on account of driage at the rate of 2%. Out of 5274.67
quintals of rice 5274 quintals of rice were delivered by the petitioner
leaving a balance of only 06 kgs.6642 bags were shifted by the
MARKFED.7852 bags of unconsumable quality were left and the
MARKFED did not lift the whole of the paddy despite repeated
requests.

4. That the present award is against the principles of “Res Judicata”.

It is submitted that the on same cause of action/ dispute as to the
terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement arose between
the parties owing to which Arbitration Clause was invoked and the
matter was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr. B.M. Sharma who had
passed his award on dated 03.07.2003 against the
applicant/objector firm for recovery of Rs. 65,71,505/- without
following the principal of natural justice. Copy of the award dated
03.07.2003 is attached herewith as Annexure A-2. Aggrieved
against this the applicant/objector had filed an objection application
u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act Ibid before the
 Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. The said objection application
was allowed on merits by the Hon`ble court of SH. Ashok Kumar
Singla, Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn vide its order dated
10.06.2010 and the aforesaid award in question was set aside. Copy
of the same is attached herewith as Annexure A-3.

5. That the respondents have ignored the settled canons of law by

initiating another arbitration proceedings without availing the
remedy available with them to challenge the said order passed by
the Ld. A.D.J., Tarn Taran setting aside the earlier Arbitration
Award. The respondents no.1 and 2 have initiated the arbitration
proceedings totally ignoring the provisions of law. It is submitted
that after receiving the notice of the arbitration proceedings from
the arbitrator i.e., respondent no.3, the objector/ petitioner
appeared before the arbitrator and filed an application contending
therein that the respondent no.3 is not capable to decide the
ambiguity and further challenged his independence and impartiality
on the ground of his employment with the respondents no.1 and 2.
The jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 was also challenged due to
his interests in the success of the case of the respondents no.1 and
2. It was specifically contended that since the respondent no.3 is
closely connected with the respondents no.1 and 2 and his
relationships falls within the shadow of doubt and furnished the
certified copy of the court order. It is submitted that after receiving
the application, the respondent no.3 orally told the objector/
petitioner that he will reject the reference of the respondent no.1
and 2 and told that the objector/ petitioner needed not to come
again as the matter has already come to end by the court of
competent jurisdiction. Later on, the objector/ petitioner received
the impugned award allegedly passed by the respondent no.3 at the
back of the objector/ petitioner and shocked to know that the
respondent no.3 has acted totally as mouth piece of the respondent
no.1 and 2 and has totally ignored the provisions of law while
passing the unlawful, arbitrary and non speaking order. Though the
respondent no.3 has admitted in the award of his having knowledge
about the existence and passing of the orders passed the Ld. ADJ,
Tarn Taran for setting aside the order but he has not mentioned any
 reason for over looking the said order. Even the reason given by the
arbitrator are against the facts and contents of the orders of the Ld.
ADJ, Tarn Taran. The respondent no.3 while passing the impugned
award has usurped the powers of the appellate court in which the
order should have been challenged by the respondent no.1 and 2.

6. That the Arbitrator has passed the award on the time barred debt
which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that present
arbitrational award pertains to the arbitration agreement dated 21-
11-1994 for custom milling of the paddy for the year 1994-95.
However, due to some reasons, disputes arose between the parties
giving rise to the alleged cause of action in the 1994-95. On the
said cause of action, the reference was made in the year 2014 and
notice was issued for 10-07-2014. With the no stretch of law, the
respondents no.1 and 2 can file claim in any court of law after the
lapse of 20 years. At the most the respondents can claim the
alleged money within three years of first cause of action. Hence, the
impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

7. That the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is against the process of

law. It is a settled principal of law that the Assessing Authority must
make every Endeavour to know all the actual position before
passing the order and assessing any amount. Whereas, in the
present matter, Ld. Respondent no. 3 misconstrued the whole
matter.

8. That the arbitrator has not followed the due procedure of law while
proceedings with the arbitral reference or deciding the matter.

9. That the arbitrator ignored the basic principal of law by awarding

the amount which was not due from the present objector which is
clearly evident from the facts stated above.

10.The demand from the applicant for Rs 34,99,665/- as on

15.09.2014 is ex-facie, bad in law and exorbitant, unrealistic and
has no basis whatsoever and is liable to be set aside.
11.That the impugned award of arbitrator is not only vague and
contrary to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement
dated 21.11.1994 which was duly executed between the parties to
agreement but is also against the principal of natural justice and
against the public policy.

12.That there are sufficient grounds for quashing and setting aside the
impugned award passed by respondent no. 3.

13.That the present objection petition is within period of limitation as

provided for filing petition U/S 34 of the Act. The impugned order
dated 04.03.2016 has been signed on 11.3.2016 and posted on
14.03.2016 has been received by the objector/ petitioner on
18.03.2016. The last date for filing the instant petition being falling
during the summer vacations, it is being filed on the very first day
after the courts are opened after vacations. If any delay is caused,
it is due to the reasons beyond the control of the objector/petitioner
as the last day for filing the petitioner happened to be holiday due
to summer vacations.

14.That this Hon`ble Court has got jurisdiction to entertain, try and
decide the present objection petition in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent no. 1 to 3.

15.That requisite court fee as prescribed under law is affixed on the

present objection petition.

16.That the objector has not filed any such similar application earlier
with this Hon`ble court nor any other suit on the same subject
matter is pending in any other court.

PRAYER:-

In view of the facts mentioned above the applicant/objector

pray for the following relieves:
 The impugned orders dated 04.03.2016 of the respondent
no. 3 vide which an amount of Rs. 34,99,665/- were recoverable,
may be set aside being non-speaking and arbitrary order.
Thus, the present application of the applicant/objector may
be allowed, in the interest of equity and justice.
Any other relief to which the applicant/objector is found
entitled may also granted to it.

……………. APPLICANT/OBJECTOR

DATE: 01.07.2016

PLACE: TARN TARAN M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS,PATTI

THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER
SH. SUBHASH CHANDER
Through counsel

MOHAN ARORA, ADVOCATE

Verification:
Verified that the contents of paras no. 1 to 11 of the application is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and paras no. 12 to 15 are true as per
the information received and believed to the correct. Last para is prayer
clause.
Verified at Tarn Taran on 01.07.2016.

(APPLICANT)
 IN THE COURT OF HON`BLE DISTRICT JUDGE,TARN
TARAN

DUPLICATE APPLICATION

IN THE MATTER OF :

M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS, AMRITSAR ROAD,PATTI DISTRICT

TARN TARAN THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER NAMELY SH.
SUBHASH CHANDER S/O SH. KHARAITI LAL AGED ____ YEARS.

………OBJECTOR/APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY &

MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, NOW IN DISTRICT TARN
TARAN.
2. PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED, PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR 35-B,
CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. SH. GURKIRAT KIRPAL SINGH, ARBITARTOR OF PUNJAB CO-
OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PLOT
NO. 4, SECTOR 35-B, CHANDIGARH.
……….RESPONDENTS

OBJECTIONS/APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34

OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED

04.03.2016 (ANNEXURE A-1) PASSED BY THE

 RESPONDENT NO.3 SH. GURKIRAT KIRPAL

SINGH

-------X------

SIR,

It is respectfully submitted as under:-

1. That the applicant/objector was partnership concern and Sh.

Subhash Chander being one of the partners of the

applicant/objector firm is filing the present petition on behalf of

firm. Moreover, he is well conversant with the facts of the instant

case.

2. That the respondents no.1 and 2 was known as MARKFED and the

respondent no.1 is the branch office and respondent no. 2 which is

the head office of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 is the

managing director of respondent no. 1 who passed the award on

behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2. Respondent no. 1 and 2 acts as

procurement agency on behalf of Food Corporation Of India for

procurement of food grains i.e. wheat and paddy in different

mandi`s of Punjab.

3. That defendants entered into an agreement dated 21.11.1994 with

the applicant/objector firm whereby the applicant was to mill the

paddy supplied by the respondents and to deliver the rice to the

Food Corporation of India (FCI). 16918 bags of paddy were stored

in the premises of applicant/objector,out of which,540 bags were

issued for milling. There was loss in the weight of paddy on account
 of 2% driage.250 bags containing 237,25 quintals of rice were

delivered with a balance of 0.10 kgs of rice as the MarkFed shifted

14594 bags. Similarly, 28603 bags of fine paddy were stored, out of

which 12359 bags were issued for milling. There was loss of 160.58

quintals on account of driage at the rate of 2%. Out of 5274.67

quintals of rice 5274 quintals of rice were delivered by the petitioner

leaving a balance of only 06 kgs.6642 bags were shifted by the

MARKFED.7852 bags of unconsumable quality were left and the

MARKFED did not lift the whole of the paddy despite repeated

requests.

4. That the present award is against the principles of “Res Judicata”.

It is submitted that the on same cause of action/ dispute as to the

terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement arose between

the parties owing to which Arbitration Clause was invoked and the

matter was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr. B.M. Sharma who had

passed his award on dated 03.07.2003 against the

applicant/objector firm for recovery of Rs. 65,71,505/- without

following the principal of natural justice. Copy of the award dated

03.07.2003 is attached herewith as Annexure A-2. Aggrieved

against this the applicant/objector had filed an objection application

u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act Ibid before the

Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. The said objection application

was allowed on merits by the Hon`ble court of SH. Ashok Kumar

Singla, Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn vide its order dated

10.06.2010 and the aforesaid award in question was set aside. Copy

of the same is attached herewith as Annexure A-3.

5. That the respondents have ignored the settled canons of law by

initiating another arbitration proceedings without availing the

remedy available with them to challenge the said order passed by

the Ld. A.D.J., Tarn Taran setting aside the earlier Arbitration

Award. The respondents no.1 and 2 have initiated the arbitration

proceedings totally ignoring the provisions of law. It is submitted

that after receiving the notice of the arbitration proceedings from

the arbitrator i.e., respondent no.3, the objector/ petitioner

appeared before the arbitrator and filed an application contending

therein that the respondent no.3 is not capable to decide the

ambiguity and further challenged his independence and impartiality

on the ground of his employment with the respondents no.1 and 2.

The jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 was also challenged due to

his interests in the success of the case of the respondents no.1 and

2. It was specifically contended that since the respondent no.3 is

closely connected with the respondents no.1 and 2 and his

relationships falls within the shadow of doubt and furnished the

certified copy of the court order. It is submitted that after receiving

the application, the respondent no.3 orally told the objector/

petitioner that he will reject the reference of the respondent no.1

and 2 and told that the objector/ petitioner needed not to come

again as the matter has already come to end by the court of

competent jurisdiction. Later on, the objector/ petitioner received

the impugned award allegedly passed by the respondent no.3 at the

back of the objector/ petitioner and shocked to know that the

respondent no.3 has acted totally as mouth piece of the respondent

no.1 and 2 and has totally ignored the provisions of law while

passing the unlawful, arbitrary and non speaking order. Though the
 respondent no.3 has admitted in the award of his having knowledge

about the existence and passing of the orders passed the Ld. ADJ,

Tarn Taran for setting aside the order but he has not mentioned any

reason for over looking the said order. Even the reason given by the

arbitrator are against the facts and contents of the orders of the Ld.

ADJ, Tarn Taran. The respondent no.3 while passing the impugned

award has usurped the powers of the appellate court in which the

order should have been challenged by the respondent no.1 and 2.

6. That the Arbitrator has passed the award on the time barred debt

which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that present

arbitrational award pertains to the arbitration agreement dated 21-

11-1994 for custom milling of the paddy for the year 1994-95.

However, due to some reasons, disputes arose between the parties

giving rise to the alleged cause of action in the 1994-95. On the

said cause of action, the reference was made in the year 2014 and

notice was issued for 10-07-2014. With the no stretch of law, the

respondents no.1 and 2 can file claim in any court of law after the

lapse of 20 years. At the most the respondents can claim the

alleged money within three years of first cause of action. Hence, the

impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

7. That the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is against the process of

law. It is a settled principal of law that the Assessing Authority must

make every Endeavour to know all the actual position before

passing the order and assessing any amount. Whereas, in the

present matter, Ld. Respondent no. 3 misconstrued the whole

matter.
8. That the arbitrator has not followed the due procedure of law while

proceedings with the arbitral reference or deciding the matter.

9. That the arbitrator ignored the basic principal of law by awarding

the amount which was not due from the present objector which is

clearly evident from the facts stated above.

10.The demand from the applicant for Rs 34,99,665/- as on

15.09.2014 is ex-facie, bad in law and exorbitant, unrealistic and

has no basis whatsoever and is liable to be set aside.

11.That the impugned award of arbitrator is not only vague and

contrary to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement

dated 21.11.1994 which was duly executed between the parties to

agreement but is also against the principal of natural justice and

against the public policy.

12.That there are sufficient grounds for quashing and setting aside the

impugned award passed by respondent no. 3.

13.That the present objection petition is within period of limitation as

provided for filing petition U/S 34 of the Act. The impugned order

dated 04.03.2016 has been signed on 11.3.2016 and posted on

14.03.2016 has been received by the objector/ petitioner on

18.03.2016. The last date for filing the instant petition being falling

during the summer vacations, it is being filed on the very first day

after the courts are opened after vacations. If any delay is caused,

it is due to the reasons beyond the control of the objector/petitioner

 as the last day for filing the petitioner happened to be holiday due

to summer vacations.

14.That this Hon`ble Court has got jurisdiction to entertain, try and

decide the present objection petition in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondent no. 1 to 3.

15.That requisite court fee as prescribed under law is affixed on the

present objection petition.

16.That the objector has not filed any such similar application earlier

with this Hon`ble court nor any other suit on the same subject

matter is pending in any other court.

PRAYER:-

In view of the facts mentioned above the applicant/objector

pray for the following relieves:

The impugned orders dated 04.03.2016 of the respondent

no. 3 vide which an amount of Rs. 34,99,665/- were recoverable,

may be set aside being non-speaking and arbitrary order.

Thus, the present application of the applicant/objector may

be allowed, in the interest of equity and justice.

Any other relief to which the applicant/objector is found

entitled may also granted to it.

……………. APPLICANT/OBJECTOR

DATE: 01.07.2016

PLACE: TARN TARAN M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS,PATTI

 THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER
SH. SUBHASH CHANDER
Through counsel

MOHAN ARORA, ADVOCATE

Verification:

Verified that the contents of paras no. 1 to 11 of the application is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and paras no. 12 to 15 are true as per

the information received and believed to the correct. Last para is prayer

clause.

Verified at Tarn Taran on 01.07.2016.

(APPLICANT)

IN THE COURT OF HON`BLE DISTRICT JUDGE,TARN

TARAN

AFFIDAVIT
 IN THE MATTER OF :

M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS, AMRITSAR ROAD,PATTI DISTRICT

TARN TARAN THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER NAMELY SH.
SUBHASH CHANDER S/O SH. KHARAITI LAL AGED ____ YEARS.

………OBJECTOR/APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY &

MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, NOW IN DISTRICT TARN
TARAN.
2. PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED, PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR 35-B,
CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. SH. GURKIRAT KIRPAL SINGH, ARBITARTOR OF PUNJAB CO-
OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PLOT
NO. 4, SECTOR 35-B, CHANDIGARH.
……….RESPONDENTS

OBJECTIONS/APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34

OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED

04.03.2016 (ANNEXURE A-1) PASSED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.3 SH. GURKIRAT KIRPAL

SINGH

AFFIDAVIT

I, SUBHASH CHANDER S/O SH. KHARAITI LAL PARTNER OF M/S

AMIT RICE TRADERS, AMRITSAR ROAD, PATTI DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY
DECLARE AND AFFIRM AS UNDER:-
1. That the applicant/objector was partnership concern and Sh.
Subhash Chander being one of the partners of the
applicant/objector firm is filing the present petition on behalf of
firm. Moreover, he is well conversant with the facts of the instant
case.

2. That the respondents no.1 and 2 was known as MARKFED and the
respondent no.1 is the branch office and respondent no. 2 which is
the head office of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 is the
managing director of respondent no. 1 who passed the award on
behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2. Respondent no. 1 and 2 acts as
procurement agency on behalf of Food Corporation Of India for
procurement of food grains i.e. wheat and paddy in different
mandi`s of Punjab.

3. That defendants entered into an agreement dated 21.11.1994 with

the applicant/objector firm whereby the applicant was to mill the
paddy supplied by the respondents and to deliver the rice to the
Food Corporation of India (FCI). 16918 bags of paddy were stored
in the premises of applicant/objector,out of which,540 bags were
issued for milling. There was loss in the weight of paddy on account
of 2% driage.250 bags containing 237,25 quintals of rice were
delivered with a balance of 0.10 kgs of rice as the MarkFed shifted
14594 bags. Similarly, 28603 bags of fine paddy were stored, out of
which 12359 bags were issued for milling. There was loss of 160.58
quintals on account of driage at the rate of 2%. Out of 5274.67
quintals of rice 5274 quintals of rice were delivered by the petitioner
leaving a balance of only 06 kgs.6642 bags were shifted by the
MARKFED.7852 bags of unconsumable quality were left and the
MARKFED did not lift the whole of the paddy despite repeated
requests.

4. That the present award is against the principles of “Res Judicata”.

It is submitted that the on same cause of action/ dispute as to the
terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement arose between
the parties owing to which Arbitration Clause was invoked and the
 matter was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr. B.M. Sharma who had
passed his award on dated 03.07.2003 against the
applicant/objector firm for recovery of Rs. 65,71,505/- without
following the principal of natural justice. Copy of the award dated
03.07.2003 is attached herewith as Annexure A-2. Aggrieved
against this the applicant/objector had filed an objection application
u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act Ibid before the
Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. The said objection application
was allowed on merits by the Hon`ble court of SH. Ashok Kumar
Singla, Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn vide its order dated
10.06.2010 and the aforesaid award in question was set aside. Copy
of the same is attached herewith as Annexure A-3.

5. That the respondents have ignored the settled canons of law by

initiating another arbitration proceedings without availing the
remedy available with them to challenge the said order passed by
the Ld. A.D.J., Tarn Taran setting aside the earlier Arbitration
Award. The respondents no.1 and 2 have initiated the arbitration
proceedings totally ignoring the provisions of law. It is submitted
that after receiving the notice of the arbitration proceedings from
the arbitrator i.e., respondent no.3, the objector/ petitioner
appeared before the arbitrator and filed an application contending
therein that the respondent no.3 is not capable to decide the
ambiguity and further challenged his independence and impartiality
on the ground of his employment with the respondents no.1 and 2.
The jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 was also challenged due to
his interests in the success of the case of the respondents no.1 and
2. It was specifically contended that since the respondent no.3 is
closely connected with the respondents no.1 and 2 and his
relationships falls within the shadow of doubt and furnished the
certified copy of the court order. It is submitted that after receiving
the application, the respondent no.3 orally told the objector/
petitioner that he will reject the reference of the respondent no.1
and 2 and told that the objector/ petitioner needed not to come
again as the matter has already come to end by the court of
competent jurisdiction. Later on, the objector/ petitioner received
the impugned award allegedly passed by the respondent no.3 at the
 back of the objector/ petitioner and shocked to know that the
respondent no.3 has acted totally as mouth piece of the respondent
no.1 and 2 and has totally ignored the provisions of law while
passing the unlawful, arbitrary and non speaking order. Though the
respondent no.3 has admitted in the award of his having knowledge
about the existence and passing of the orders passed the Ld. ADJ,
Tarn Taran for setting aside the order but he has not mentioned any
reason for over looking the said order. Even the reason given by the
arbitrator are against the facts and contents of the orders of the Ld.
ADJ, Tarn Taran. The respondent no.3 while passing the impugned
award has usurped the powers of the appellate court in which the
order should have been challenged by the respondent no.1 and 2.

6. That the Arbitrator has passed the award on the time barred debt
which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that present
arbitrational award pertains to the arbitration agreement dated 21-
11-1994 for custom milling of the paddy for the year 1994-95.
However, due to some reasons, disputes arose between the parties
giving rise to the alleged cause of action in the 1994-95. On the
said cause of action, the reference was made in the year 2014 and
notice was issued for 10-07-2014. With the no stretch of law, the
respondents no.1 and 2 can file claim in any court of law after the
lapse of 20 years. At the most the respondents can claim the
alleged money within three years of first cause of action. Hence, the
impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

7. That the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is against the process of

law. It is a settled principal of law that the Assessing Authority must
make every Endeavour to know all the actual position before
passing the order and assessing any amount. Whereas, in the
present matter, Ld. Respondent no. 3 misconstrued the whole
matter.

8. That the arbitrator has not followed the due procedure of law while
proceedings with the arbitral reference or deciding the matter.
9. That the arbitrator ignored the basic principal of law by awarding
the amount which was not due from the present objector which is
clearly evident from the facts stated above.

10.The demand from the applicant for Rs 34,99,665/- as on

15.09.2014 is ex-facie, bad in law and exorbitant, unrealistic and
has no basis whatsoever and is liable to be set aside.

11.That the impugned award of arbitrator is not only vague and

contrary to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement
dated 21.11.1994 which was duly executed between the parties to
agreement but is also against the principal of natural justice and
against the public policy.

12.That there are sufficient grounds for quashing and setting aside the
impugned award passed by respondent no. 3.

13.That the present objection petition is within period of limitation as

provided for filing petition U/S 34 of the Act. The impugned order
dated 04.03.2016 has been signed on 11.3.2016 and posted on
14.03.2016 has been received by the objector/ petitioner on
18.03.2016. The last date for filing the instant petition being falling
during the summer vacations, it is being filed on the very first day
after the courts are opened after vacations. If any delay is caused,
it is due to the reasons beyond the control of the objector/petitioner
as the last day for filing the petitioner happened to be holiday due
to summer vacations.

14.That this Hon`ble Court has got jurisdiction to entertain, try and
decide the present objection petition in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent no. 1 to 3.

15.That requisite court fee as prescribed under law is affixed on the

present objection petition.
16.That the objector has not filed any such similar application earlier
with this Hon`ble court nor any other suit on the same subject
matter is pending in any other court.

PRAYER:-

In view of the facts mentioned above the applicant/objector

pray for the following relieves:
The impugned orders dated 04.03.2016 of the respondent
no. 3 vide which an amount of Rs. 34,99,665/- were recoverable,
may be set aside being non-speaking and arbitrary order.
Thus, the present application of the applicant/objector may
be allowed, in the interest of equity and justice.
Any other relief to which the applicant/objector is found
entitled may also granted to it.

Deponent

Verification:

Verified that the contents of the above said affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been concealed
therein.

Verified at Tarn Taran on ____________.

Deponent
 IN THE HON`BLE COURT OF SH. SUMIT MALHOTRA,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,TARN TARAN

M/S Amit Rice Traders Versus District Manager & Others

(OBJECTIONS/APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996)

Evidence by way of affidavit of AW-1

I, SUBHASH CHANDER S/O LATE SH. KHARAITI LAL PARTNER OF M/S AMIT
RICE TRADERS, AMRITSAR ROAD, PATTI DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND
AFFIRM AS UNDER:-

1. That the applicant/objector was partnership concern and Sh.

Subhash Chander being one of the partners of the
applicant/objector firm is filing the present objections/petition on
behalf of firm. Sh. Kharaiti lal partner of the applicant firm was
expired during the pendency of the present objections. Moreover,
Sh. Subhash Chander is well conversant with the facts of the instant
case.
2. That defendants entered into an agreement dated 21.11.1994 with
the applicant/objector firm whereby the applicant was to mill the
paddy supplied by the respondents and to deliver the rice to the
Food Corporation of India (FCI). 16918 bags of paddy were stored
in the premises of applicant/objector, out of which, 540 bags were
issued for milling. There was loss in the weight of paddy on account
of 2% driage.250 bags containing 237,25 quintals of rice were
delivered with a balance of 0.10 kgs of rice as the MarkFed shifted
14594 bags. Similarly, 28603 bags of fine paddy were stored, out of
which 12359 bags were issued for milling. There was loss of 160.58
quintals on account of driage at the rate of 2%. Out of 5274.67
quintals of rice 5274 quintals of rice were delivered by the petitioner
leaving a balance of only 06 kgs. 6642 bags were shifted by the
MARKFED.7852 bags of unconsumable quality were left and the
 MARKFED did not lift the whole of the paddy despite repeated
requests.
3. That It is submitted that the on same cause of action/ dispute as to
the terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement arose
between the parties owing to which Arbitration Clause was invoked
and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr. B.M. Sharma
who had passed his award on dated 03.07.2003 against the
applicant/objector firm for recovery of Rs. 65,71,505/- without
following the principal of natural justice. Copy of the award dated
03.07.2003 is attached herewith as Ex A-___. Aggrieved against
this the applicant/objector had filed an objection application u/s 34
of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act Ibid before the Additional
District Judge, Tarn Taran. The said objection application was
allowed on merits by the Hon`ble court of SH. Ashok Kumar Singla,
Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn vide its order dated 10.06.2010
and the aforesaid award in question was set aside. Certified Copy of
the said judgment is attached herewith as Ex A-___.
4. That the respondents have ignored the settled canons of law by
initiating another arbitration proceedings without availing the
remedy available with them to challenge the said order passed by
the Ld. A.D.J., Tarn Taran setting aside the earlier Arbitration
Award. The respondents no.1 and 2 have initiated the arbitration
proceedings totally ignoring the provisions of law. It is submitted
that after receiving the notice of the arbitration proceedings from
the arbitrator i.e., respondent no.3, the objector/ petitioner
appeared before the arbitrator and filed an application contending
therein that the respondent no.3 is not capable to decide the
ambiguity and further challenged his independence and impartiality
on the ground of his employment with the respondents no.1 and 2.
In fact, the arbitrator who is one of the employee of the department
and in order to give advantage to the department, has verbatim
given the award in favour of the department in numerous cases in
Punjab running into hundreds and all the awards if taken altogether,
are nothing but a typed matter of similar dictum and getting the
reproduction of the claim made by the department and all the
award running into hundreds in number have been given in favour
of department by the arbitrator in order to give undue advantage to
 the department and using coercive method against the objector.
The jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 was also challenged due to
his interests in the success of the case of the respondents no.1 and
2. It was specifically contended that since the respondent no.3 is
closely connected with the respondents no.1 and 2 and his
relationships falls within the shadow of doubt and furnished the
certified copy of the court order. It is submitted that after receiving
the application, the respondent no.3 orally told the objector/
petitioner that he will reject the reference of the respondent no.1
and 2 and told that the objector/ petitioner needed not to come
again as the matter has already come to end by the court of
competent jurisdiction. Later on, the objector/ petitioner received
the impugned award allegedly passed by the respondent no.3 at the
back of the objector/ petitioner and shocked to know that the
respondent no.3 has acted totally as mouth piece of the respondent
no.1 and 2 and has totally ignored the provisions of law while
passing the unlawful, arbitrary and non speaking order. Though the
respondent no.3 has admitted in the award of his having knowledge
about the existence and passing of the orders passed the Ld. ADJ,
Tarn Taran for setting aside the order but he has not mentioned any
reason for overlooking the said order. Even the reason given by the
arbitrator is against the facts and contents of the orders of the Ld.
ADJ, Tarn Taran. The respondent no.3 while passing the impugned
award has usurped the powers of the appellate court in which the
order should have been challenged by the respondent no.1 and 2.
5. That the Arbitrator has passed the award on the time barred debt
which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that present
arbitrational award pertains to the arbitration agreement dated 21-
11-1994 for custom milling of the paddy for the year 1994-95.
However, due to some reasons, disputes arose between the parties
giving rise to the alleged cause of action in the 1994-95. On the
said cause of action, the reference was made in the year 2014 and
notice was issued for 10-07-2014. With the no stretch of law, the
respondents no.1 and 2 can file claim in any court of law after the
lapse of 20 years. At the most the respondents can claim the
alleged money within three years of first cause of action. Hence, the
impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
6. That the arbitrator has not followed the due procedure of law while
proceedings with the arbitral reference or deciding the matter.
7. The demand from the applicant for Rs 34,99,665/- as on
15.09.2014 is ex-facie, bad in law and exorbitant, unrealistic and
has no basis whatsoever and is liable to be set aside.
8. That the impugned award of arbitrator is not only vague and
contrary to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement
dated 21.11.1994 which was duly executed between the parties to
agreement but is also against the principal of natural justice and
against the public policy.

Deponent

Verification:

Verified that the contents of the above said affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been concealed
therein.

Verified at Tarn Taran on ____________.

Deponent
 IN THE HON`BLE COURT OF SH. P. S. RAI, ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE,TARN TARAN

M/S AMIT RICE TRADERS VERSUS DISTRICT MANAGER & OTHERS

WRITTEN SYNOPSIS BY COUNSEL OF PETITIONER/OBJECTOR OF

OBJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION

ACT, 1996

Sir,

The counsel for petitioner/objector hereby submits written synopsis:

1. That the present objections has been filed by the petitioner/ogjector

alleging that the applicant/objector was partnership concern and Sh.
Subhash Chander being one of the partners of the applicant/objector
firm is filing the present objections/petition on behalf of firm. Sh.
Kharaiti lal partner of the applicant firm was expired during the
pendency of the present objections. Moreover, Sh. Subhash Chander is
well conversant with the facts of the instant case.

2. That defendants/respondents entered into an agreement dated

21.11.1994 with the applicant/objector firm whereby the
applicant was to mill the paddy supplied by the respondents and
to deliver the rice to the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Copy
of award is Ex _______.

3. That 16918 bags of paddy were stored in the premises of

applicant/objector, out of which, 540 bags were issued for
milling. There was loss in the weight of paddy on account of 2%
 driage.250 bags containing 237,25 quintals of rice were delivered
with a balance of 0.10 kgs of rice as the MarkFed shifted 14594
bags. Similarly, 28603 bags of fine paddy were stored, out of
which 12359 bags were issued for milling. There was loss of
160.58 quintals on account of driage at the rate of 2%. Out of
5274.67 quintals of rice 5274 quintals of rice were delivered by
the petitioner leaving a balance of only 06 kgs. 6642 bags were
shifted by the MARKFED.7852 bags of unconsumable quality
were left and the MARKFED did not lift the whole of the paddy
despite repeated requests.

4. That It is submitted that the on same cause of action/ dispute as

to the terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement arose
between the parties owing to which Arbitration Clause was
invoked and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr.
B.M. Sharma who had passed his award on dated 03.07.2003
against the applicant/objector firm for recovery of Rs.
65,71,505/- without following the principal of natural justice.
Copy of the award dated 03.07.2003 is attached herewith as Ex
______. Aggrieved against this the applicant/objector had filed
an objection application u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act Ibid before the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. The said
objection application was allowed on merits by the Hon`ble court
of SH. Ashok Kumar Singla, Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn
vide its order dated 10.06.2010 and the aforesaid award in
question was set aside. Certified Copy of the said judgment is
attached herewith as Ex ______.

5. That the respondents have ignored the settled canons of law by

initiating another arbitration proceedings without availing the
remedy available with them to challenge the said order passed
by the Ld. A.D.J., Tarn Taran setting aside the earlier Arbitration
Award. The respondent’s no.1 and 2 have initiated the arbitration
proceedings totally ignoring the provisions of law. It is submitted
that after receiving the notice of the arbitration proceedings from
the arbitrator i.e., respondent no.3 in the year 2014, the
objector/ petitioner appeared before the arbitrator and filed an
reply/objections contending therein that the respondent no.3 is
not capable to decide the ambiguity and further challenged his
independence and impartiality on the grounds of his
employment with the respondents no.1 and 2. In fact, the
arbitrator who is one of the employee of the department and in
order to give advantage to the department, has verbatim given
the award in favour of the department in numerous cases in
Punjab running into hundreds and all the awards if taken
altogether, are nothing but a typed matter of similar dictum and
getting the reproduction of the claim made by the department
and all the award running into hundreds in number have been
given in favour of department by the arbitrator in order to give
undue advantage to the department and using coercive method
against the objector. The jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 was
also challenged due to his interests in the success of the case of
the respondents no.1 and 2. It was specifically contended that
since the respondent no.3 is closely connected with the
respondents no.1 and 2 and his relationships falls within the
shadow of doubt and furnished the certified copy of the court
order. It is submitted that after receiving the application, the
respondent no.3 orally told the objector/ petitioner that he will
reject the reference of the respondent no.1 and 2 and told that
the objector/ petitioner needed not to come again as the matter
has already come to end by the court of competent jurisdiction.
Later on, the objector/ petitioner received the impugned award
allegedly passed by the respondent no.3 at the back of the
objector/ petitioner and shocked to know that the respondent
no.3 has acted totally as mouth piece of the respondent no.1 and
2 and has totally ignored the provisions of law while passing the
unlawful, arbitrary and non speaking order. Though the
respondent no.3 has admitted in the award of his having
knowledge about the existence and passing of the orders passed
the Ld. ADJ, Tarn Taran for setting aside the order but he has not
mentioned any reason for overlooking the said order. Even the
reason given by the arbitrator is against the facts and contents of
the orders of the Ld. ADJ, Tarn Taran. The respondent no.3 while
passing the impugned award has usurped the powers of the
 appellate court in which the order should have been challenged
by the respondent no.1 and 2.

6. That the Arbitrator has passed the award on the time barred
debt which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that
present arbitrational award pertains to the arbitration agreement
dated 21-11-1994 for custom milling of the paddy for the year
1994-95. However, due to some reasons, disputes arose between
the parties giving rise to the alleged cause of action in the 1994-
95. On the said cause of action, the reference was made in the
year 2014 and notice was issued for 10-07-2014. With the no
stretch of law, the respondents no.1 and 2 can file claim in any
court of law after the lapse of 20 years. At the most the
respondents can claim the alleged money within three years of
first cause of action. Section 43(1) of “The Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 as the limitation act 1963 apply to
arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court”. Hence,
the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground
alone.

7. That the present award is against the principles of “Res

Judicata”. It is submitted that the on same cause of action/
dispute as to the terms and conditions of the arbitration
agreement arose between the parties owing to which Arbitration
Clause was invoked and the matter was referred to the sole
arbitrator Mr. B.M. Sharma who had passed his award on dated
03.07.2003 against the applicant/objector firm for recovery of
Rs. 65,71,505/- without following the principal of natural justice.
Copy of the award dated 03.07.2003 is attached herewith as Ex
______. Aggrieved against this the applicant/objector had filed
an objection application u/s 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act Ibid before the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran. The said
objection application was allowed on merits by the Hon`ble court
of SH. Ashok Kumar Singla, Additional District Judge, Tarn Tarn
vide its order dated 10.06.2010 and the aforesaid award in
question was set aside.
 8. That the arbitrator has not followed the due procedure of law
while proceedings with the arbitral reference or deciding the
matter. The arbitrator who is one of the employee of the
department and in order to give advantage to the department,
has verbatim given the award in favour of the department in
numerous cases in Punjab running into hundreds and all the
awards if taken altogether, are nothing but a typed matter of
similar dictum and getting the reproduction of the claim made by
the department and all the award running into hundreds in
number have been given in favour of department by the
arbitrator in order to give undue advantage to the department
and using coercive method against the objector. The jurisdiction
of the respondent no.3 was also challenged due to his interests in
the success of the case of the respondents no.1 and 2. It was
specifically contended that since the respondent no.3 is closely
connected with the respondents no.1 and 2 and his relationships
falls within the shadow of doubt and furnished the certified copy
of the court order. Moreover, the arbitrator had not furnished the
certificate along with the award as per amendments of the Act ibid.

9. The demand from the applicant for Rs 34,99,665/- as on

15.09.2014 is ex-facie, bad in law and exorbitant, unrealistic and
has no basis whatsoever and is liable to be set aside.
That the impugned award of arbitrator is not only vague and
contrary to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement
dated 21.11.1994 which was duly executed between the parties
to agreement but is also against the principal of natural justice
and against the public policy.

It is, therefore, prayed that petition under section 34 of the

Act Ibid may kindly be allowed and the impugned award may
kindly be set aside in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

Date: submitted by counsel of petitioner