Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19th January, 2005, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur, dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
(2.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment, it is relevant to record at the very outset that an arbitral award can be set aside under Sub Section 2 of Section 34 of Act, 1996, under the following circumstances. "(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if- (a) the party making the application furnishes proof that- (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not failing within the terms of the submissions to arbitration, or it contains decision on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the arbitrator sans entering into the details of the payment made by the appellant to the respondents erringly passed the award. He further canvassed that the appellant examined two witnesses namely KC Sharma and Bharat Kumar Singhal Ex.En. but the arbitrator did not consider the statements and sans examining their statements, passed the award cursorily contrary to the material on record.;