FAO No.412 of 2009 -: 1 :- In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. FAO No.412 of 2009 Decided on 30 .5.2009 Union of India and others -- Appellants vs M/S Onkar Nath Bhalla and another -- Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ram Chander,Advocate, for the appellants Mr.G.S.Bhatia,Advocate,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar, Jain, J: This appeal is directed against the order of learned District Judge,Gurdaspur dated 9.9.2008, whereby the objections filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short,the Act) for setting aside the award dated 5.2.2003 have been dismissed. Briefly stated, an agreement bearing contract agreement No.CEBTZ 13/95-96 was entered into between the appellants and respondent No.1 on 4.12.1995 for execution of provisions of married accommodation for other ranks (Ors) at Gurdaspur. The work was physically completed on 31.3.1997. The respondent signed the final bill under protest and submitted his claim along-with final bill. Payment of the final bill was made to the respondent No.1. except for list of claims submitted with final bill. The respondent No.1. moved the Competent Authority to refer the matter to the Arbitrator as per terms and conditions of the contract. Respondent No.2 was appointed as sole Arbitrator, who gave his award on 5.2.2003 awarding Rs.10,17,732.48 against claim Nos. 1 to 4, 8 and 9 including past and pendente-lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.12.1997 to 5.2.2003 and future interest at FAO No.412 of 2009 -: 2 :- the rate of 15% (simple) if the awarded amount is not paid within 90 days from the date of award, till actual date of payment and Court decree, whichever was earlier. The said award was challenged by the appellants by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act, which too, has been dismissed by the learned District Judge,Gurdaspur, vide the impugned order dated 9.9.2008. In this case, learned counsel for the appellants has primarily argued that the drawings which forms part of the agreement are sufficient to prove that unit rates are inclusive of cupboards and as such, respondent No.1.was not entitled to recover the amount for cup boards as it was covered under the contract agreement. He challenged the finding of the Arbitrator where it has been observed as under:- “The drawings mentioned do not contain the work “CB” and no drawings forming part of the agreement for CB were produced during the hearing. The only drawing which were relied upon was the additional drawings which were supplied during the execution of the contract for cupboards particularly marked as “CB which could not form part of the contract agreement and I hold that as per the contentions raised by the claimants they are entitled to the cost of work carried out by them as per the directions of the respondent. The argument given by Union of India only indicates their resolve not to follow the contract conditions. The claim of the contractor is therefore established”. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that no evidence has been led by either side before the Court below. He argued that no drawings were produced by the appellants to show existence of the word “cup board”. The learned Court below ultimately observed that no evidence has been led on behalf of the appellants in support of the allegations constituting the petition, therefore, the plea FAO No.412 of 2009 -: 3 :- of the appellants had remained unsubstantiated. It was also observed that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, is neither in the nature of a suit nor in the nature of an appeal,calling upon the Court to re-appraise the evidence recorded by the Arbitrator to come to a conclusion different from the one reached by the Arbitrator. Thus, it was found that in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be held that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself. During the course of arguments, it was pointedly asked to the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether drawings which are being relied upon are part of the record of the Arbitrator to which it was replied that the drawings were not brought before the Arbitrator. In such a situation, where there is no drawings produced before the Arbitrator which contain a word “cup board”, then it cannot be presumed that the Arbitrator has committed an error of law by misreading the evidence available on the record. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Court below. The present appeal is, thus, found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. May 30,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge Refer to Reporter-- Yes