1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.91 OF 2004 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.243 OF 2003 M/s.Bassan Engineering Corporation. ...Appellant vs. 1.Union of India & another. ...Respondents --- Mr.Pankaj Das i/b. R.S.Datar, for Appellant. Mr.T.J.Pandian, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 4th February,2009. P.C.:- 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this 2 Court dismissing arbitration petition no.243 of 2003. It was a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging an Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitration clause was invoked by the appellant which was contained in the contract entered into by the appellant with the Railways. The petitioner had made claims against the Railways. Before the Arbitrator, the Railways made counter claim against the petitioner. The learned Arbitrator by his Award has rejected all the claims made by the appellant and has granted the counter claim made by the Railway. 2. So far as challenge to the Award rejecting the claims made by the appellant are concerned, from the order it appears that there is only one ground raised namely that there are no reasons given by the learned Arbitrator for rejecting the claims made by the appellant. Perusal of the Award, however, shows that for rejecting each claim made by the appellant, the learned Arbitrator has given reasons, and therefore, it cannot be said that there are no reasons given by the learned Arbitrator for rejecting 3 the claims made by the appellant. The learned Counsel appearing for appellant sought to argue that the Award is bad also on the ground of alleged misconduct of the Arbitrator and also on the ground that the Arbitrator has travelled beyond the scope of reference. Perusal of the order shows that these grounds were not argued before the learned Single Judge and therefore, in our opinion, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise these ground for the first time in this Court. The learned Counsel then submitted that the learned Arbitrator has wrongly granted the counter claim. We have heard the appellant on this aspect of the matter. We do not find any illegality. In any case the counter claim granted is only for Rs.26400/-. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) 4 ---