Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

This appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2015 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No. 50/2010 whereby, the learned court rejected the application of appellants filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for quashing the arbitral award dated 15.07.2010.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent contractor M/s Gopal Ram Gumani (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent contractor') was granted work order for work of PCC Block lining vide order passed by the Executive Engineer on 24.10.1989 and agreement was executed in this regard. Since there was an arbitration clause in the contract for resolution of dispute, if any, therefore, when dispute arose between the parties, the respondent contractor preferred an application for appointment of arbitrator on 16.03.2000 and also moved to the High Court under Clause 23 of the agreement for appointment of arbitrator and this Court vide order dated 08.01.2008 appointed Shri M.C. Mehta as an arbitrator.

3. The respondent contractor filed claim before the Sole Arbitrator with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to make payment of Rs. 2,08,501/- along with interest @ 18% per annum for the period 11.09.1990 to 10.06.2009. It was stated in the claim that in pursuance of work order dated 24.10.1989, the respondent contractor commenced the work on 09.11.1989 and the date of completion was 08.03.1990 and the respondent contractor completed the work on 10.09.1990 but the final bills were not prepared on time. According to the respondent contractor the tender work in pursuance of NIT No. 1989-90/11 the cost of work was 5.20 lacs and the period of work was four months whereas, in the amended NIT dated 22.09.1989 the cost of work was enhanced to 9.34 lacs but the period was not increased and was kept 04 months only which was not proper whereas, the respondent contractor finished the work in proportion to the cost of work during nine months.

4. A reply to claim was submitted by the appellants before the Arbitrator and it was stated much before passing of the work order, the amount of work was enhanced to Rs. 9.34 lacs and therefore, it was not the case that the amount of work was increased after passing of work order and therefore, it is a case in which the respondent contractor after accepting the work order, failed to complete the work within stipulated period therefore, in pursuance of terms and conditions of the contract, the penalty was imposed and same was recovered out of the running bill of the respondent contractor.

5. The Arbitrator after hearing both the parties, framed as many as ten issues and the Arbitrator while deciding the issues in favour of the respondent contractor and against the appellants, passed an award dated 15.07.2010 and ordered the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,58,520/- along with interest for the period from 10.03.1991 to 10.06.2009 i.e. in total a sum of Rs. 4,92,205/- along with legal expenses in the sum of Rs. 32,850/-.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 15.07.2010, the appellants filed an application under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan. However, the learned District Judge after hearing the rival contentions, rejected the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 vide order dated 21.05.2015. It was held by the learned court below that the objections raised by the appellants in the application under Section 34(2) of the Act are beyond the scope of Section 34(2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, none of the ground raised by the appellants falls in any of the categories of the objections which cannot be raised under the said provision.

7. Learned counsel for the appella