IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s Pathela Rice Mills and others …Appellants Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others …Respondents

FAO-520-2012 (O&M) AND
FAO-521-2012 (O&M) 1
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 11.04.2016
1. FAO-520-2012 (O&M)
M/s Pathela Rice Mills and others
…Appellants
Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others
…Respondents
2. FAO-521-2012 (O&M)
M/s Pathela Rice Mills and others
…Appellants
Versus
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate
for the appellants (in both the appeals).
Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 and 2 (in both the appeals).
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
AMIT RAWAL , J. (ORAL)
This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO
No.520 of 2012 titled as “M/s Pathela Rice Mills and others V/s Punjab State
Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others” and FAO No.521 of 2012 titled

Mr. S.K. Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant(s), submits that the Arbitrator gave Award dated 09.09.2005 in
favour of the PUNSUP. The same was objected to by filing the objections
which were accepted and the matter was remitted back to the Managing
Director to decide the same as per the Clause 9 and 22 of the agreement. He
further submits that the matter cannot be remanded back in view of the
judgment rendered by this Court in FAO no.686 of 2012 titled as ‘M/s Moga
Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd V/s Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
and others” decided on 22.01.2016.
Mr. I.S. Sidhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the order,
under challenge. Once, it was found by the Objecting Court that the claim of
the PUNSUP was within the excepted clause, the order, under challenge, is not
justified and prays for dismissal of the appeals.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the
paper book and of the view that there is a merit in the appeal. For the sake of
brevity, the operative part of the order dated 12.09.2001 passed by the
Objecting Court reads thus:-
“In view of my findings on the above said issues, this objection
petition succeeds, with costs, and the award dated 09.09.2005
passed by the Sole Proprietor is set aside and the Managing
Director, PUNSUP, shall be at liberty to decide the matter as per
Clause 9 and Clause 22 of the Agreement afresh. Memo of costs

It is now settled law that the Objecting Court cannot remand back
the matter to the Managing Director. The parties are free to seek vindication of
their grievance in accordance with law. This view of mine is fortified vide
judgment rendered in M/s Moga Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd’s case (supra).
Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the
case, the order of the Objecting Court qua remand back the matter to the
Managing Director, giving the liberty to decide the claim as per Clause Nos.9
& 22 of the Agreement, is hereby set aside and rest of order is affirmed.
The parties shall be at liberty to seek the vindication of their
grievance in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of.
11.04.2016

( AMIT RAWAL )
JUDGE
3 of 3

Related Images

Leave a Comment