FAO-CARB-34-2018 (O&M) 1 21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-CARB-34-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2026 M/S GANESH RICE MILL ....Appellant Versus PUNJAB STATE GRAIN PROCUREMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR ***** Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate and Mr. Jaskirat Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) CM-91-FCARB-2018 Delay of 09 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and accordingly, the delay of 09 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM-92-FCARB-2018 Delay of 23 days in refiling the appeal has been satisfactorily explained. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and accordingly, the delay of 23 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main case 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’) arises out of an order passed by the Additional MOHIT GOYAL 2026.05.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-CARB-34-2018 (O&M) 2 District Judge, Commercial Court, Gurdaspur dated 24.08.2017, whereby the appellant’s objections to the arbitral award under section 34 of the 1996 Act have been rejected. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that during the crop season 2011- 12, the respondent-Corporation supplied 86734.90 quintals of paddy contained in 2,47,814 bags of 35 kilograms each for custom milling. Out of it, the appellant-miller was required to deliver 58112.38 quintals of rice contained in bags of 50 kilograms each. The stipulated period for doing so was extended uptill 31.12.2012. The appellant-miller however delivered only 37679.80 quintals of rice to the FCI. For the shortfall in supply of rice, the respondent- department initiated recovery at the rate of Rs.1740/- per quintal (in A-class bags) and Rs.1681/- per quintal (in B-class bags) amounting to Rs.6,25,64,364/-. The claim was objected to by the appellant before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator vide its reasoned award has allowed the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.5,29,28,576/-, against which objections filed under section 34 of the 1996 Act have been rejected. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant argues that the contract for custom milling was limited to 26330 quintals of paddy, and therefore, in the absence of any agreement, it was not open for the respondents to have stored larger paddy, nor was it open for the Arbitrator to have travelled beyond the terms of the contract so as to hold the appellant liable for return of the paddy which was not subjected to custom milling at the rate demanded by the respondents. 4. We have perused the award of the Arbitrator, as also the order passed by the Commercial Court rejecting the appellant’s objections. Though it MOHIT GOYAL 2026.05.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-CARB-34-2018 (O&M) 3 is undisputed that the contract specified the quantity of paddy to be stored and then custom milled to be 26330 quintals, but it remains undisputed that in fact a much larger quantity of paddy was delivered to the appellant for custom milling. The Arbitrator has gone into this aspect of the matter and has found that the appellant had in fact issued receipts acknowledging specified quantity of paddy over and above the quantity specified in the contract for custom milling. Actual milling was also far in excess of the contracted quantity. It was in this context that the Arbitrator has found substance in the claim lodged by the respondents as per which the shortfall in supply of rice as against paddy had to be made good. 5. The issues for consideration have bee noticed by the Arbitrator in para 12. In para 13 and 14, the Arbitrator has held as under:-
              ! "#$%&  !     '     !     (  )  *  !               + ,*'      - !  -  -    !  ( )!    !      ..".)  -      ( )*    + ,*             -    !! -   -     !    ! !     '      %...      /0 !        ! MOHIT GOYAL 2026.05.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-CARB-34-2018 (O&M) 4 1'   ".,%   -   !! 2    /  )     3  !     $.1. -   ,%1.  '    !  ! ! -   !.     + ,*   !   -   '                           - !  !  - ! !  !     2    / )     !       -         4  ".,%  -!  !     -                      2        /  )       3  ! !  ! ! -           3   5  !      )     -  6-  !      !-     & 7   ! -     7!! -8 - 5      '  &      9 6. The factual finding returned by the Arbitrator as per which a much larger quantity was actually received by the appellant and part of it was subjected to custom milling remains undisputed. No objection was ever raised by the appellant resisting the supply of paddy for custom milling on the ground that such supply was over and above the contracted quantity. Having accepted such larger quantity of paddy supplied to the appellant and proceeding with substantial custom milling of such supplied paddy, it would not be open for the MOHIT GOYAL 2026.05.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-CARB-34-2018 (O&M) 5 appellant to subsequently turn around and state that there was no contract to subject larger quantity of paddy over and above the specified quantity. The finding returned by the Arbitrator is based upon examination of evidence adduced by the parties in a process consistent with the provisions of the Act. The view expressed by the Arbitrator is clearly a permissible view, particularly keeping in view the conduct of the appellant. It otherwise remains undisputed that the appellant never objected to receiving of extra paddy and had willingly issued acknowledgment of such receipt. Having done so with open eyes, the appellant cannot turn around and take a contrary view later. Such view of the Arbitrator has rightly not been interfered with by the Commercial Court. Considering the limited scope of proceedings under section 37 of the 1996 Act, we are therefore not impressed by the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant. 7. Though the appeal has been filed in 2018, but the same has been argued for the first time. Having considered the submissions of the appellant, we find that no case for admission of the appeal is made out for consideration under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) MAY 19, 2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2026.05.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document