IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 09, 2025 M/S HAQIQAT RICE MILL AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS Versus (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:16)

(cid:7) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondents.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

This is an appeal preferred against the order dated August 21, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’).

2. Vide the impugned order, the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was held that the burden was entirely upon the miller-respondents in the arbitration proceedings and the appellants