IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Application No. 7 of 2009 M/s Rapti Contractors ….…… Applicant Versus Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & others ……….Respondents Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the respondents Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. An Award was made by the Arbitrator appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. That Award was challenged before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Act was made by both the parties to the arbitration agreement. When the Applications were considered by the District Judge, he purported to set aside the Award proceeding on the basis of that the parties to the award have consented to have the Award set aside. The District Judge concerned did not record in the order that he is satisfied that grounds under Section 34 of the Act exist for setting aside the Award. The District Judge was not competent to set aside the Award on the ground that the parties have agreed to have the Award set aside. 2. In the circumstances, the parties having had obtained an Award from the Arbitrator and having had expressed before the District Judge that they are not satisfied with the Award, cannot take recourse to arbitration afresh. The Application, therefore, as made, fails and the same is dismissed. 3. It has been brought on record that subsequent to the filing of the Application for appointment of Arbitrator, an appeal has been preferred against the order of the District Judge, setting aside of the Award on consent of the parties. In the event the appeal succeeds, it shall be open to the parties to take such recourse to law as they may be advised, including re-approaching this Court. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.07.2011 Aswal 2