Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. First Appeal No. 3216 of 201 2 is filed by the appellant-original applicant-IOC under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in Misc. Civil Application No. 957 of 2010 passed by the Auxiliary Chamber Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 31st March, 2012 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. It is contended inter alia that the impugned judgment and order is not a reasoned order and no reasons are assigned for not setting aside the order of the Arbitrator. It is contended that it is reproduction of the arbitration award. Further it has been contended that the Court below has not appreciated that the rod was inserted in dispensing unit and the opponent in its reply has not disputed the said fact and the onus was upon the opponent to prove that the said rod was not inserted for manipulating the delivery of the product or the dispensing unit. It is contended that the Court below has completely overlooked the fact that OILCO representatives had confirm