- (1.) Heard Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants State and Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhara for the respondent.
(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 against the judgment dated 31st of May, 2012 whereby the District Judge, Lucknow in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 has rejected the petition and affirmed the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 25th of April, 2009.
(3.) Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while assailing the judgment dated 31st of May, 2012 by which the award has been affirmed, primarily urged and argued the appeal on three grounds:- (i) That the Arbitrator so appointed was not in consonance with the settled procedure which was agreed between the parties. (ii)That the finding returned by the Arbitrator is not borne out from the record; inasmuch as the dispute raised by the claimant-respondent regarding deduction made in pursuance of inferior quality of paper supplied, which was duly tested in a Central Government Laboratory, was binding and could not have been ignored by the tribunal and the same error has been committed by the District Judge while considering the application under Section 34 . (iii)That the Arbitrator has awarded a penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the award till the date of its payment and it has been submitted that this is on the higher side and while the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to grant interest for the post award period yet it cannot be penal in nature. ;