FAO No. 524 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 524 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 25, 2009 M/s Vijay Kumar Rajesh Kumar, Jalalabad, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur through its partners ........ Appellants Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PUNSUP, Chandigarh through its Manager Legal and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rakesh Koundal, Advocate for Mr. K S Rupal, advocate for the appellant Mr. R S Dadwal, Advocate for Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 2591 CII of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 270 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 270 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. FAO No. 524 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Main appeal This is an appeal against the order dated 07.02.2007 passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the objections of the appellant filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ' the 1996 Act'), challenging the Award dated 03.04.2003, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the aforesaid order as well as award states that the statutory provisions of Section 11 read with the scheme framed under sub section 10 of Section 11 of the 1996 Act, have not been complied with in the instant case. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to how the the appointment of the Arbitrator is not in accordance with the scheme framed under sub Section 10 of Section 11 of the 1996 Act. Further, the grounds on the basis of which, the aforesaid award has been challenged, cannot be made the basis for challenging the same under Section 34, muchless Section 37 of the 1996 Act. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the order 07.02.2007 passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel is not able to dispute that the interest has also been awarded in accordance with the law. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 25, 2009 mohan