Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India limited a Government of India Public Sector Unit, through its Chairmancum Managing Director having its Head office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. Kutchery, P.S. Kotwali, Dist: Ranchi Jharkhand ... ... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate 06/11.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.5 of 2017 has been filed for the following relief: "That the appellant herein prays for setting aside the final order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 02 of 2010 by Sri Rakesh Kumar the learned SubJudgeI, (Civil Judge) Senior Division, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby and where under in the said case instituted on an application made under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Central Coalfields Limited (Present respondent) for setting aside the award made by learned Sole Arbitrator dated 23.12.2006, the said Arbitration Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator on 23.12.2006 has been set aside ." Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the point of jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator and while passing the impugned order, the learned court below has not even referred to the findings of the learned arbitrator to hold that the findings of the learned arbitrator was hit by any of the permissible grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996). 2 4. The learned counsel submits that the order passed by this Court under Section 11(6) has interpreted the provision of clause 95 of the arbitration agreement. The learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to submit that the respondent having not raised certain points regarding the jurisdiction at the relevant point of time has waived his right to raise such points at a later stage. The learned counsel has submitted that provision of Section 4 is to be read with Section 16 of the Act, 1996. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned the arbitral award has been set aside by recording that although the High Court had appointed Director (Technical) Project and Planning Division, CCL Ranchi, as the Arbitrator, but the Director (Technical) operation CCL appointed another person namely, R.D. Roy, Former CMD as Arbitrator by issuing a letter to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and such appointment was in violation of the order dated 04.11.2003 passed by the High Court. Learned court below has recorded that such appointment of arbitrator was in violation of Clause 95 of contract agreement read with order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 18 SCC 277 (Quippo Construction Equipment Limtied vs