FAO No.4746 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4746 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.2.2010 The Jamalpur Shikhan, Adarsh Co-op. L& C Society Limited .... Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Puneet Leekha, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl.AG Haryana for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The Contractor is in appeal against the award of the Arbitrator dated 21.5.2007 who has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,174/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of award till the date of payment to the respondents. Objection filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') at the behest of the appellant was dismissed by learned District Judge, Fatehabad vide his order dated 22.9.2008. In the present appeal, following order was recorded by this Court on 15.7.2009. “Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing for some time restricts his prayer with respect to rate of interest. While challenging the grant of interest at the rate of 18% from the date of FAO No.4746 of 2008 (O&M) -2- award till future payment awarded by the Arbitrator, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the same was on the higher side and requested for time to substantiate his arguments with case law. Adjourned to 30.7.2009” Thereafter, on 30.7.2009, on the request of counsel for the appellant, the case was adjourned to 24.9.2009 but last opportunity was granted to argue the matter. On 24.9.2009, the matter was adjourned to 8.12.2009 and on 8.12.2009, it was adjourned to 25.2.2010 on the request of counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant had restricted his prayer to challenge the rate of interest and had taken time to substantiate his argument with case law, counsel for the appellant was asked to substantiate his argument but he could not refer to any law nor could point out any error in the approach of the learned Court below, hence, I do not find any justiciable reason which could warrant an interference in the order of the Court below. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 25.2.2010 JUDGE Meenu