IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2709/2004 UIT, Ajmer Vs. Vijay Walia & Ors. 26.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri R.P. Singh, for the appellant. Shri Surendra Budania, for the respondents. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 28.8.2004 passed on the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main dispute between the parties is to whether the contractor respondent herein was entitled to the benefit of clause 30A. The appellant disputed the above claim on the ground that there was no provisions in the contract. The claimant contractor and on the other hand relied the amendment issued by the State Government made on 30.8.1993 contractor on fulfillment of the condition mentioned there. In the instant case the contract was awarded to the respondent Contractor vide letter dated 20.10.1993 for construction of certain residential quarters. As per stipulation the work was required to be completed within a period of 365 days but the Contractor completed the same by 29.10.1994 i.e. within a period of 6 months i.e. in a time frame less by 10% than as originally agreed which was 365 days. On the basis of clause 30A which was introduced by the Government vide amendment made on 30.8.1993 if the work is completed by the Contractor in a period less than the agreed period the Contractor would be awarded 2% incentive. The Arbitrator allowed the said claim in the light of the above facts holding that the Contractor fulfilled the criteria for application of clause 30A in the facts and circumstances of the present case and allowed 2% as that amount. Being aggrieved by the above award dated 21.3.2002the appellant filed their objection under Section 34 before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge rejected the objection of the appellant with regard to the claim on the basis of the clause 30A which was held to have been brought into force on account of the orders issued by the Government on 30.8.1993 and made applicable in the present case also as the contract was awarded on 20.10.1993 after the amendment and induction of clause 30A on 30.8.1993. Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the award as well as the judgment. Keeping in view of the scope of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 I do not find that the present one is a case which calls for interference under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 with regard to claim which has been allowed on the basis of the provisions of clause 30A introduced by the State Government by virtue of the amendment dated 30.8.1993 to the terms of the agreement concluded on 20.10.1993 i.e. After the amendment. This misc. appeal as well as the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS