IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb.Appeal No.3 of 2004 Decided on: February 25, 2009 Hari Om Thakur …..Appellant. VERSUS Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd. …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Devyani Sharma, advocate for respondent Deepak Gupta,Judge This appeal is directed against the award of the Learned District Judge, Kinnuar at Rampur in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2001 decided on 12.8.2004 whereby he rejected the objections filed by the present appellant to the award delivered by Shri Vijay Chaudhary, Arbitrator. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the work of construction of alternative access to Dam Complex 370 metre to 730 metre and widening of a portion of Maglad Adit was awarded by the respondent-Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (NJPC) in favour of the appellant. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. An agreement was entered between the parties and the said agreement contained an arbitration clause. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.2,45,000/- against the NJPC in the court of District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur. According to the petitioner, he had paid wages at enhanced rate to his work force and had supplied some stones to the respondent and he claimed that he was entitled to recover the enhanced rates as well as the value of the stone from the NJPC. The suit was contested by the NJPC and an objection was raised that in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement, this dispute between the parties was liable to be referred to arbitrator. 4. Thereafter, the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur referred the matter for adjudication to the Arbitrator. Shri Vijay Chopra was appointed the Arbitrator. He rejected the claim of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, the appellant filed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for setting aside the award dated 28.6.2001 passed by the Arbitrator. The main contention raised was that the Arbitrator had not rightly considered the matter and the award was erroneous. It was also alleged that the Arbitrator had mis-conducted himself and decided issues not falling within his jurisdiction. However, the main thrust of the appellant was that the Arbitrator had not rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. …3… 6. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the Arbitrator had looked into the matter in detail and rejected the objections. Hence the present appeal. 7. We have heard Sh.Inderjit Narwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. By now, the law is well settled that under the Act, the Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the award of an Arbitrator. Even a wrong finding of the Arbitrator cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The Award of the Arbitrator can only be challenged on the limited grounds mentioned in Section 34 of the Act. None of the grounds raised by the appellant fall under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant wants this Court to reappraise the evidence. This is not permissible. The Arbitrator has decided the matter after considering the entire evidence. We, therefore, cannot interfere in the same. The learned District Judge rightly refused to interfere in the award. 9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. (V.K.Ahuja) February 25, 2009 Judge (m)