Sonia Gokani, J.

1. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by the learned 5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara rendered in Misc. Civil Application No. 95 of 2004, rejecting the application preferred by the present appellant for setting aside the Award dated 22ndJanuary, 2004, in the following factual background.

Factual background:

The appellant had advertised by way of local newspapers for the contract for manufacture and supply of poles, wherein, the respondents were found to be the successful bidder. Some disputes and differences arose between the parties, and therefore, the respondents/claimants filed Misc. Civil Application No. 214 of 1982 under Secs. 8 and9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara for the appointment of Arbitrator. The Court appointed one Shri M.S. Iyengar, Chief Engineer (Arbitrations), Roads & Buildings Department, Government of Gujarat as the sole Arbitrator. However, Shri Iyengar vide his communication dated 30th January, 1985 showed his unwillingness to act as an Arbitrator.

2. The respondent thereafter preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 130 of 1985 before the very Court for appointment of another Arbitrator and the Court vide its order dated 30th June, 1988 appointed Shri R.G. Patel, retired Chief Engineer & Joint Secretary as the Sole Arbitrator. However, before the said Arbitrator undertakes thework of arbitration, he passed away and as a result, the claimant filed yet another Misc. Civil Application No. 87 of 1998 for appointment of another Arbitrator and the learned 9th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara appointed Shri A.B. Marathe, retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes by and between the parties on 2nd December, 2000.

3. The respondent claimed compensation under different heads by filing Statements of claim before the learned sole Arbitrator. Such Claim Statement also was objected to by the appellant and after adjudication of the disputes between the parties, the learned Arbitrator passed an award dated 22nd January, 2004 whereby he directed the appellant-company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,42,257-25 p. and the cost of Rs. 23,000/- to the respondent-original claimant with 12% interest per annum from 22nd April, 2004, till realisation on the principal amount.

4. An application, being Misc. Civil Application No. 95 of 2004, was made under Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ("Act" for short) by the appellant to direct the Arbitrator to produce original award alongwith evidences in the form of deposition and documents to be filed before the Court in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Act, with a further request to issue notice to the parties for filing the objections, wherein, summons/notice was issued by the Court to the parties to the proceedings.

5. The appellant also filed an application before the Court seeking direction of setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator being Misc. Civil Application No. 45 of 2004. On the Arbitrator having filed such award before the Court both the sides have been heard at length in both the Misc. Civil Application Nos. 95 and 45 of 2004 and the Court rejected the application for setting aside the Award dated 22nd January, 2004 by a detailed order and judgment dated 23rd March, 2006.

6. The appellant has approached this Court against such order and judgment, raising following various grounds in the present appeal.

7. Impugned judgment is essentially attacked on the ground that the very issue of maintainability of arbitration proceedings was addressed to by the Arbitrator in accordance with law against the respondent and yet, to grant any amount to the respondent, is illegal and erroneous. It is also further challenged on the ground of perversity by emphasising the fact that the amount of compensation granted in favour of the respondent is based on presumption and surmises and without