JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The appeal against the order dismissing a petition to set aside the award filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). The claim had been initiated by the Haryana Warehousing Corporation against M/s Krishna Rice Mills for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the entrustment of paddy for milling. The Rice Mill was said to be a partnership firm through four persons namely Sohan Lal, Vipin Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Vijay Kumar. The appellants claim to be purchasers from the erstwhile partners and in the document of purchase it appears that the vendors had undertaken all liabilities that they contracted during the partnership. The appellants’ grievance is that the partners allowed the award to be passed without contest and they have not fulfilled the promise which they gave to the appellants. 2. The petition at the instance of the subsequent purchasers of the business of partnership firm was itself not competent as a person not a party to the proceedings. If there was a clause providing for indemnity or an admission by the vendors that they alone would be liable for any subsisting liability on the date of sale, the appellants’ remedy would be only to honour the liability secured under the award if it were to protect against any process in execution against the assets in their hands and cannot file an application under Section 34 of the Act. The remedy will exist for the appellants independently against the vendors and will have no right for an intervention through an application under Section 34 of the Act in the manner done by the court below. 3. The order already passed is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed but with the above liberty.