IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL AO NO. 707 OF 2001 Union of India, through the Commander, Works Engineer, Dehradun ……….Appellant. Versus M/s Khattak Brothers, 39, Old Cannought Place, Dehradun, through its partner Sri D.C. Khattak. ……..Respondent. Present: Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal from order under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. A contract for widening and repairing the roads at 58 GTC Dehradun was given to the respondent by the appellant department on 5.7.1971. A dispute arose between the parties and since there was an arbitration clause in the agreement, the matter was referred for arbitration on 17.9.1975. Sri K. Dev Rajan was appointed as sole Arbitrator in the matter to decide the dispute. After entering into the arbitration and consideration of the evidence led by the parties and their pleadings, he published his award on 30.3.1977. There were seven claims of the petitioner before the Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator rejected all six claims of the respondent and the sole claim of Union of India for grant of Rs. 1,00,270.66 was partly allowed to the extent that an award was given to the tune of Rs. 60,829.56. Present respondent had challenged the said award before the Civil Judge being Case No. 89 of 1980 on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself. The Court below after framing an issue on the point whether the Arbitrator misconducted himself and the proceedings, came to the conclusion that the Arbitrator proceeding can be constituted as a misconduct. The misconduct, according to the Court below, was the manner in which he proceeded in the matter, such as considering irrelevant facts and not considering the relevant material and also violation of the principles of natural justice and fair-play. The Court below, therefore, held that there has been a misconduct not as the term of moral turpitude, but a technical misconduct has occurred and therefore came to the conclusion that the award is liable to be set aside itself. 3. The ground of setting aside an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is stated in Section 30 of the Act, which reads as under:- “30. Grounds for setting aside award.—An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:- (a) than an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings; (b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under section 35; (c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.” 4. Perused the record. 5. The grounds of challenge are that in arbitration proceedings procedural defects do not result in failure to justice and are of no significance and the provisions of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are not attracted. 6. However, in view of the fact that the order dated 7.12.1984 has been passed by the Civil Judge in accordance with law in strict terms of the Arbitration Act, 1940, there is no ground for interference by this Court in an appeal from order. This Appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Interim order, if any, is vacated. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.9.2010 Rathour