M/S Adhunik Krishi Kentra & ORS v. Hmt Ltd & ORS

CM-10953-CII-2015 in/and FAO-3668-2015 (O&M) Anuradha 2018.02.12 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CM-10953-CII-2015 in/and FAO-3668-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.1.2018 M/S ADHUNIK KRISHI KENDRA & ANOTHER ....APPELLANTS VS HMT LIMITED & OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:

Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondents.

**** AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) CM-10954-CII-2015 This is an application for condonation of 545 days delay in refiling the appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 545 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM-10953-CII-2015 This is an application under Section 149 of the CPC for permission to affix deficient court fees.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

Main Case This appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Panchkula dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') filed by

CM-10953-CII-2015 in/and FAO-3668-2015 (O&M) Anuradha 2018.02.12 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the appellant. The admitted facts are that the appellant was a dealer of the respondent No.1 and ultimately, resigned from the dealership. The respondent filed a claim stating that as part of the arrangement between the parties respondent used to supply tractors and tractor parts to the appellant on credit and after sale the appellant would remit the sale price to the respondent. There was a running account between the parties and ultimately, at the time when the agency was terminated the appellant had to pay an amount of Rs.2,52,642.36 paisa.

The appellant made a counter claim where it was alleged that there were certain expenses which the appellant had undertaken on behalf of the respondent which had not been accounted for. The Arbitrator allowed the claim of the respondent and also partly allowed the counter claim filed by the appellant and passed an award. The same having been challenged under Section 34 and the challenge having been rejected the appellant is before this Court. In paragraph 23 of the impugned order, the Court has dealt with the parameters under which an application under Section 34 of the Act has to be considered. Counsel has not been able to show me that the parameters mentioned are wrong or which one of them is violated in the present case.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M, if any, also stand disposed of.

24.1.2018 (AJAY TEWARI) anuradha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No