1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ِAPPEAL NO.344 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.478 OF 2004 ... Prasar Bharati The Executive Engineer (Civil) Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, Mumbai ...Appellant v/s. M/s.Choudhury & Choudhury (I) Ltd., Mumbai ...Respondent ... Ms. S.I.Shah for the Appellant. Mr.K.P.Srijeeth i/b India Law for Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,JJ DATED: 14 th June, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal an order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act in relation to 2 the award made by the learned Arbitrator on claim Nos.2 & 3 is challenged. The learned single Judge has held that the Arbitrator was justified in directing payment of an amount of Rs.1,92,204/- as against Claim No.2 and an amount of Rs.1,63,450/- as against Claim No. 3. The only defence raised on behalf of the Appellant was that in view of the letter dated 6-11-1998 the claim could not have been made by the contractor/claimant. The learned arbitrator in his award on appreciation of material placed before him has said that that letter was given under duress by the contractor and it was not out of free will. Only this finding was challenged before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that this finding of the learned arbitrator is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence, and therefore under the extremely limited jurisdiction under 3 Section 34 of the Arbitration Act he cannot disturb the finding of fact recorded by the learned Arbitrator. When we asked the learned Counsel for the Appellant to point out to us any provision under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by which a finding of fact recorded by the arbitrator can be disturbed by the court. The learned Counsel relies on Section 34(2) of the Act. In our opinion, that provision does not permit the court to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the arbitrator. Appeal, therefore, has no substance. It is rejected. 2. During the pendency of the appeal amount which was awarded has been deposited by the Appellant. The Court has permitted the Respondent to withdraw the amount on furnishing a bank guarantee. Now that appeal is rejected, the bank guarantee will have to 4 be discharged. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, it is directed that the Prothonotary & Sr.Master shall permit the Respondent to discharge the bank guarantee after a period of four weeks from today. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.P.SondurBaldota J.)