Lakhvir Singh Lakhvir Singh v. M/s Supreme Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. M/s Supreme Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd
Case Details
2023 (O&M) FAO-5305-2023 (O&M) Sr. No.235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH FAO FAO-5305-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.04.2025 Date of Decision : Lakhvir Singh Lakhvir Singh …Appellant Versus M/s Supreme Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. M/s Supreme Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. for the appellant. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI Under challenge in the present appeal is the award dated Under challenge in the present appeal is the award dated Under challenge in the present appeal is the award dated October 3, 2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator and the judgment dated October 3, 2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator and October 3, 2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator and July 25, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. July 25, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. July 25, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. 2. i. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The brief facts of the case are as follows: The brief facts of the case are as follows: Appellant claimant was appointed as an agent of the respondent- ellant-claimant was appointed as an agent of the respondent for collection of milk from different villages on contract company for collection of milk from different villages on contract company basis. ii. At the time of the engagement, the claimant was provided with At the time of the engagement, the claimant was provided with At the time of the engagement, the claimant was provided with ous machineries including milk cooler, generator sets, geyser ous machineries including milk cooler, various machineries including milk cooler, etc. iii. Charges Charges for diesel consumed for maintaining generator and electricity charges were to be paid by the respondent. electricity charges were to be paid by the respondent. electricity charges were to be paid by the respondent. 3. It It It is is is the case of the case of the case of the appellant-claimant the appellant the appellant that despite uninterrupted supply of milk, the respondent company did not make the supply of milk, the respondent isite payments to the claimant. requisite payments to the claimant. VANDANA 2025.04.30 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 7 2023 (O&M) FAO-5305-2023 (O&M) 4. Despite repeated assurances on the part of the respondent- Despite repeated assurances on the part of the respondent Despite repeated assurances on the part of the respondent company, the entire payment of the claimant was not released by the the entire payment of the claimant was not released by the respondent, at stipulated rates. respondent, at stipulated rates. 5.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled proposition of law that the learned Arbitrator It is well settled proposition of law that the learned Arbitrator It is well settled proposition of law that the learned Arbitrator is the master of quality and quantity of evidence. is the master of evidence. A beneficial reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Associate Builders may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Arguments
It was urged on behalf of the claimant that since April 2, 2015 It was urged on behalf of the claimant that since April It was urged on behalf of the claimant that since April no sum was paid by the respondent to the appellant. A no sum was paid by the respondent to the appellant. A total sum of was payable by the respondent on account of cost of milk and Rs.90,000/- was payable by the respondent on account of cost of milk and was payable by the respondent on account of cost of milk and a sum of Rs.58 was payable by the respondent toward the sum of Rs.58,72,826/- was payable by the respondent toward the e respondent and actually paid by difference in rate agreed to be paid by the respondent and actually paid by difference in rate it. 6. Since the respondent failed to pay the aforesaid amounts, Since the respondent failed to pay the aforesaid Since the respondent failed to pay the aforesaid arbitration proceedings were instituted. arbitration proceedings were instituted. 7. In July 2015, the agent/representative of the respondent In July 2015, the agent/representative of the respondent In July 2015, the agent/representative of the respondent arrived at the appellant’s premises and sought to take away the company arrived at the appellant’s premises and sought to take away the arrived at the appellant’s premises and sought to take away the machinery belonging to the respondent. However, due machinery belonging to the respondent. However, due to the protests of the appellant, the , the respondent could not take away the machineries take away the machineries which had been handed over to the appellant. been handed over to the appellant. 8. opposed the claim of the appellant- The respondent-Company opposed the claim of the appellant The claimant inter alia inter alia by bringing on record its defects. by bringing on record its defects. It was the case of the that dues of the claimant were settled on a yearly basis. The that dues of the claimant were settled on respondent that dues of the claimant were settled on said dues had been accepted by the claimant without said dues had been by the claimant without any protest or demur. The amount paid by the respondent was accepted by the claimant out of his The amount paid by the respondent was accepted by the claimant out of his The amount paid by the respondent was accepted by the claimant out of his free will. However, since the quality of milk supplied free will. However, since the quality of milk supplied was not up to the requisite standards, the claimant was required by the respondent requisite standards, t he claimant was required by the respondent-company to upgrade the quality of the supplied milk. to upgrade the quality of the supplied milk. 9. Despite such intimation on behalf of the respondent, the Despite such intimation on behalf of the respondent, the Despite such intimation on behalf of the respondent, the claimant continued to supply milk and receive payments. However, after a claimant continued to supply milk and receive payments. claimant continued to supply milk and receive payments. VANDANA 2025.04.30 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 7 2023 (O&M) FAO-5305-2023 (O&M) the claimant stopped supplying milk to the respondent-company the claimant stopped supplying milk to the respondent period the claimant stopped supplying milk to the respondent without any reason any reason. 10. It was the respondent’s case that the claimant knowing fully It was the respondent’s case that the claimant It was the respondent’s case that the claimant well illegally and unauthor illegally and unauthorizedly withheld the machines, izedly withheld the machines, equipments and fixtures of the respondent Company It was also urged on behalf of the of the respondent Company. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent that as per the terms of the contract, the claimant was required to respondent that as per the terms of the contract, the claimant was required to respondent that as per the terms of the contract, the claimant was required to hand over the machineries e machineries/equipments/fixtures /equipments/fixtures to the respondent as and demanded by the respondent. when demanded by the respondent. 11. The learned Arbitrator after per The l earned Arbitrator after perusing the documents and considering the evidence on record held that the claimant failed to prove considering the evidence on record held that the claimant failed to prove considering the evidence on record held that the claimant failed to prove the respondent did not make payment at the prevailing market rates. that the respondent did not make payment at the prevailing market rates. the respondent did not make payment at the prevailing market rates. Furthermore, the claimant failed to provide Furthermore, t provide documentary evidence for calculation of prevailing market rates. Only handwritten ra calculation of p nly handwritten rate lists signed by the claimant, were provided to substantiate its claim. the claimant, were provided to substantiate its claim. the claimant, were provided to substantiate its claim. 12. Learned Arbitrator found that the respondent, on the other Learned Arbitrator found that the respondent, on the other Learned Arbitrator found that the respondent, on the other hand, was able to was able to produce receipts signed by the claimant by the claimant evidencing the that he had voluntarily accepted the payments. Such receipts were fact that he had voluntarily accepted the payments. Such receipts were that he had voluntarily accepted the payments. Such receipts were issued on the letterhead of the respondent company. Furthermore, the issued on the letterhead of the respondent company. Furthermore, the issued on the letterhead of the respondent company. Furthermore, the General Manager of the respondent Company deposed that the claimant General Manager of the respondent Company deposed that the claimant General Manager of the respondent Company deposed that the claimant unauthorizedly withheld the property of the company unauthorizedly withheld the pro company. The respondent also witnesses along with the order produced affidavits of evidence of several witnesses along with the order produced affidavits of evidence of passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated April 16, 2015. passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated April 16, 2015. passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated April 16, 2015. 13. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator relying on the documentary Therefore, the learned Arbitrator relying on the documentary Therefore, the learned Arbitrator relying on the documentary evidence and evidence on af idence and evidence on affidavits held that the claimant fidavits held that the claimant completely failed to prove his case against the respondent. failed to prove his case against the respondent. failed to prove his case against the respondent. VANDANA 2025.04.30 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 7 2023 (O&M) FAO-5305-2023 (O&M) 14. to prove that lakhs of rupees Not only did the claimant fail to prove that lakhs of rupees Not only did were outstanding from the company but also failed were outstanding from the company but also failed to provide any satisfactory answer answer to the question why he had signed the ‘ why he had signed the ‘No Dues’ Certificate/receipts ertificate/receipts in favour of the respondent when the respondent when several lakhs were Therefore, the claim of the appellant- outstanding from the respondent. Therefore, the claim of the appellant outstanding from the respondent. claimant was rejected. claimant was rejected. 15. The learned Arbitrator also found that The learne found that no directions could be given in favour of the respondent-Company given in favour of the respondent ompany for handing over the equipment, machinery and fixtures illegally withheld by the claimant since equipment, machinery and fixtures illegally withheld by the claimant since equipment, machinery and fixtures illegally withheld by the claimant since arbitral reference. the same was beyond the scope of the arbitral reference. the same was beyond the scope of 16. hallenged in an application under Section The said award was challenged in an application under Section The said award was c 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to ‘ 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . The learned Additional District Judge after discussing the the 1996 Act’). The learned Additional District Judge after discussing the the 1996 Act’) law came to the finding that the learned Arbitrator has passed a well law came to the finding that the learned Arbitrator has passed law came to the finding that the learned Arbitrator has passed reasoned award after taking into consideration the entire evidence. The reasoned award after taking into consideration the entire evidence. The reasoned award after taking into consideration the entire evidence. The learned ADJ held that the Court examining the application under Section held that the Court examining the application under no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over an award. He 34 of the 1996 Act had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over an award. He 34 of the 1996 Act had ade out to set aside the award under held that there was no ground made out to set aside the award under held that there was no ground m Section 34 (2) of the 1996 Act. Therefore, he dismissed the Section 34 Section 34 (2) of the 1996 Act. Therefore, he dismissed the Section 34 (2) of the 1996 Act. Therefore, he dismissed the application being devoid of any merits. application being devoid of any merits. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the evidence has not been appreciated that the evidence has not been appreciated by the learned Arbitrator in proper perspective. He submits that despite outstanding sums payable to proper perspective. He submits that despite outstanding sums payable to proper perspective. He submits that despite outstanding sums payable to erroneously rejected by the learned the claimant, his claims were erroneously rejected by the learned the claimant, his Arbitrator. VANDANA 2025.04.30 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 7 2023 (O&M) FAO-5305-2023 (O&M) 18. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the material on record. perused the material on record. 19. It appears from the award discussed hereinabove that the It appears from the award discussed hereinabove that the It appears from the award discussed hereinabove that the rbitrator analyzed the documentary evidence on record and the learned Arbitrator analyzed the documentary evidence on record and the rbitrator analyzed the documentary evidence on record and the given by the parties and came to the finding that by producing given by the parties and came to the finding that by affidavits given by the parties and came to the finding that by handwritten rate chart only signed by the claimant, he was rate charts that were only signed by the claimant, he was unable to prove before the learned Arbitrator that the said rates were unable to prove before the learned Arbitrator that the said rates were unable to prove before the learned Arbitrator that the said rates were stipulated for supply of milk or that the respondent was at default in not stipulated for supply of milk or that the respondent was at default in not stipulated for supply of milk or that the respondent was at default in not paying according to the rate charts. paying according to the rate charts. 20. Furthermore, no satisfactory explanation Furthermore actory explanation could be given by the claimant as to why he signed the ‘ receipts which unambiguously aimant as to why he signed the ‘No Dues’ receipts which unambiguously pointed to the fact that there was nothing due and payable by the pointed to the fact that there was nothing due and payable by the pointed to the fact that there was nothing due and payable by the respondent-company company to the claimant. Moreover Moreover, it was also not answered actorily why despite lakhs of rupees being purportedly payable by the satisfactorily why despite lakhs of rupees being purportedly payable by the actorily why despite lakhs of rupees being purportedly payable by the respondent, the claimant continued to supply milk to the respondent. respondent, the claimant continued to supply milk to the respondent. respondent, the claimant continued to supply milk to the respondent. 21.