1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5984 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.10.2010. *** Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board .. Appellant VS. Ram Kumar & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short, the Board) has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 7.6.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak by dint of which application of the appellant filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for modification of award dated 15.1.2007, has been dismissed. It is apposite to mention here that after the dispute between the present parties relating to laying down of road, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator for settlement. Consequently, award dated 15.1.2007 was passed by the Arbitrator, against which the appellant, dis-satisfied with the amount awarded under some heads, filed petition under Section 34 of the Act ibid and the Court below dismissed the petition, by dint of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and record perused. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the arbitration proceedings were not conducted by the arbitrator in accordance with law by misconducting himself or that the award was passed 2 beyond the scope of agreement. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. 2003(5) SCC 705, to contend that if an award is passed contrary to substantive provisions of law or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or against the terms of contract, the same would be patently illegal and subject to interference under Section 34(2)(a) (v) of the Act. I have gone through the aforesaid authority. In that case on the request of contractor the time for supplying the goods was extended on the condition that ONGC would recover the agreed stipulated damages, which, at the time of finalization of bill was deducted accordingly. The contractor laid challenge to the said deduction before the Arbitrator and consequently the said deduction was set aside by the Arbitrator on the ground that ONGC had failed to establish that it had suffered any monetary loss and directed the same to be refunded together with interest. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the award and held that such an award is violative of Section 28(2) and (3) and can be set aside under Section 34(2) of the Act. But the same is not the situation in the instant case. The claims were settled by the Arbitrator on the basis of material on record, which were within its ambit. There is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 25,2010 Jiten