FAO No.4756 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4756 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18.03.2010 **** Union of India represented by Garrison Engineer (North), Ambala Cantt. . . . . Appellant VS. M/s Anil Kumar Gupta and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Ms.Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 05.09.2007 whereby, objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 26.5.2001, has been dismissed. Learned Court below has referred to the cross-examination of Rajiv Singh (PW1), who had admitted that Arbitrator Colonel Jitender Singh had published the award by giving detailed reasons in respect of different claims after granting due hearing to the parties. It is observed by learned Court below that the Civil Court, while deciding FAO No.4756 of 2008 (O&M) -2- objection under Section 34 of the Act cannot sit over in appeal to examine the correctness of the arbitral award. In respect of the rate of interest, the learned Court below has held that interest awarded @ 15% per annum was slightly on higher side, therefore, it was reduced to 12% per annum and to be paid from the date of award till the date of final payment. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the rate of interest deserves to be further reduced to 10%. It is also submitted that Arbitrator has erred in appreciation of facts and evidence in respect thereof, which has not been touched by the learned Court below. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the conclusion drawn by the Arbitrator on the basis of appreciation of evidence cannot be re-agitated in the present appeal and so far as the rate of interest is concerned that has already been reduced by the learned Court below from 15% to 12% and there is no further scope of reducing the same to 10% per annum. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Although, learned counsel for the appellant has earnestly argued that the rate of interest should be reduced from 12% to 10% but she has miserably failed to refer to any provision either of the agreement or law to substantiate her submission. Similarly, nothing has been pointed out as to how the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or arbitral award can be set aside under any of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. FAO No.4756 of 2008 (O&M) -3- In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 18.03.2010 JUDGE vivek