INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the objections filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 16.05.2005 were dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants invited tenders on 12.12.1997 for carrying out lining and wiring and other employees for the year 1997-98. In pursuance to the above, the respondent submits her quotation which was accepted being the lowest. On acceptance of the tenders for the work in favour of the respondent an agreement for work was executed between the appellants and the respondent on 28.01.98, both the parties were abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. The work assigned to the respondent was carried out and completed on 17.02.1998, the respondent then submitted the final bill of the work Rs. 2,50,000/- to the appellants. When the department has not made the payment to the respondent-contractor then he filed and application before the Learned District Judge for appointment of Arbitrator and the Learned District Judge Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 05.06.2004 appointed Justice (Retd.) G.L. Gupta as Sole Arbitrator. Where the respondent-contractor has filed a statement of claim and prayed that appellant-department may be directed to make payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the claimant-applicant and further to refund the money deposited by her with them Rs. 40,000/- and further prayed for award the interest @ 24% per annum. The appellant-respondents have filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation. It was also stated that the claimant has filed wrong affidavit at the time of agreement. It was further stated that father of the applicant was employee of the Telecom Department and enquiry was also initiated as the father of the applicant. It is thus stated that the payment could not be made because the claim of the applicant was not verified by the Divisional Engineer.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has argued that the Learned Arbitrator as well as the learned District Judge has wrongly interpreted Clause 10 of the agreement executed between the parties according to which the claimant was not entitled to get the contract. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that Learned District Judge has wrongly awarded the interest as the claimant was not entitled to receive any claim. Counsel further argued that in view of the various judgments pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of this Court to challenge the arbitration award is very limited and the learned court below has rightly rejected the objections submitted by the appellants.;