FAO No.87 of 2009 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.87 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.3.2009 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s Sachdeva Trading Company and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.S.C.Pathela, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award of Arbitrator dated 10.7.2003 and order of District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 5.9.2008 passed on an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator. Vide his award, the Arbitrator found a sum of Rs.4,80,493/- recoverable from the respondents at the time of filing of the revised claim petition whereas a sum of Rs.5,41,698.50 plus Rs.1,18,115.42 was found payable to the miller and as such, it was found held that the appellant is not entitled to any amount from the respondent whereas appellant is liable to pay Rs.1,79,320.92 to the respondents along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 15.8.2000 when the last installment of the cost of balance rice was deposited till realization of the awarded amount. In the application under Section 34 of the Act, the only argument raised for setting aside the arbitral award by the appellant was that the Arbitrator has not awarded the FAO No.87 of 2009 -2 - price of A Class Bardana as also 1.5 times economic cost, income tax and interest in favour of the applicant. These matters cannot be gone into by this Court under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act as these matters are in the exclusive domain of the Arbitrator and it is not found that these matters have been gone into detail in the arbitral award. Similarly, grant of interest in favour of contesting respondents was also within the competence of Arbitrator and no interference is called for under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act in that respect. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in the order of the Court below. In fact, nothing has been argued before this court so as to challenge the correctness of the impugned order. Therefore, the present appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 24.3.2009 JUDGE Meenu