Judgment:
Civil Revision No.3320 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:
09. 05.2013 1.
Civil Revision No.3320 of 2010 (O&M) Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd..Petitioner Versus Alcari Quai Du Seujet ..Respondent 2.
Civil Revision No.288 of 2011 (O&M) Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd..Petitioner Versus Alcari Quai Du Seujet ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present : Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).Ms.Kavita Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent (s).A.N.Jindal, J.
(Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.3320 of 2010 and 288 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions.
Civil Revision No.3320 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Alcari Quai Du Seujet-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the respondent') entered into an agreement with Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.-petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner') for supply of 30000 M/tons of DI Ammonium Phosphate (DAP).However, a dispute having been arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to the ArbitratORS.who passed an Award dated 01.10.1999 in favour of the respondent.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for making the Award as Rule of the Court along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
The petitioner also filed an objection petition for setting aside the aforesaid Award.
The Civil Judge (Junior Division).Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 15.10.2005, dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner and made the award as Rule of the Court along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization, against which, both the parties filed their respective appeals, whereupon the fiRs.Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 30.11.2009, dismissed the appeal, preferred by the petitioner.
However, the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the rate of interest was enhanced to the extent of 12% per annum.
Hence, these petitions.
Heard, having examined the impugned judgment, the same appears to be well reasoned and well founded.
No merits.
Dismissed.
09.05.2013 ajp [ A.N.Jindal ].Judge