Kambli 1 ARBP577.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.577 OF 2008 ... M/s.Raj & Co. ...Petitioner v/s. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents ... Ms.Shilpa Kapil for the Petitioner. Ms.S.V.Bharucha for the Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh DATED: 17th March, 2011 P.C.: 1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act the Petitioner challenges the award by which the learned Arbitrator has awarded claim No.1 in favour of the Petitioner, but has rejected all other claims made by the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner is challenging, by this petition, rejection of the claims made by the Petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. Kambli 2 ARBP577.08 I have also gone through the award. Perusal of the award shows that the Claims Nos.2, 3 & 4 relate to the material remained that at site after termination of the contract by the Union of India. The Petitioner was claiming costs of the building material that remained at site as also centering material that remained at site as also infrastructural construction that was made by the Petitioner at site. The learned Arbitrator has considered these three claims and has held that all the quantity remained at site has been recorded by the Board of Officers while making inventory of the material that has remained at site and they have adjusted the amount which was due according to them to the contractor on that account in final bill. The learned Arbitrator has held that he has no reason to disbelieve the calculation made by the Board of Officers as nothing is alleged against them by the Petitioner. In my opinion, this being essentially a question of appreciation of evidence on record and essentially a finding of fact, it cannot be interfered with in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 3. So far as other claims are concerned, they also relate to the claims made by the Petitioner because of premature termination of his contract. These claims have been rejected by the learned Arbitrator principally for lack of evidence on record. Kambli 3 ARBP577.08 4. On hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, I do not find that it is the grievance of the Petitioner that any material that was produced by the Petitioner on record has not been considered by the learned Arbitrator. If the learned Arbitrator after considering the evidence which is produced by the contractor comes to the conclusion that the evidence is not enough to award the claim in favour of the claimant, in my opinion, it will be purely a finding of fact incapable of being interfered with in the limited jurisdiction of this court in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)