R. SUDHAKAR, J.

This Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to set aside the arbitral award passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator against the present appellant.

2. A Dealership Agreement was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent on 10.07.2000, whereby dealership of H.P. Gas was awarded to the appellant herein. Due to violation of the terms of the said dealership agreement, the dealership was terminated on 16.06.2008. The claim of the appellant before the Arbitrator was for restoration of the dealership, since the termination was illegal. A counter claim was filed by the first respondent seeking payment of Rs.10,80,028/-with interest. The Arbitrator, by award dated 10.1.2009, upheld the order of termination of dealership and allowed the counter claim amount of Rs.10,80,028/-along with interest of Rs.11,02,046.32 calculated up to 30.6.2008 @ 13% per annum.

3. Calling into question the said award, the appellant preferred an Original Petition. The learned Single Judge, in the order dated 20.11.2009, after considering the letter of the appellant dated 20.5.2002 addressed to the Regional Manager of the first respondent/company, admitting her liability to the extent of Rs.9,86,000/-, which she offered to repay at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from July, 2002, held that the Arbitrator was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant and allowing the counter claim of the first respondent. It was further held that there was nothing perverse in the finding of the Arbitrator and that the Award is passed based on the evidence on records, that is to say after considering the statement of accounts and other documents relied upon by both sides. The learned Single Judge also held that the finding of the Arbitrator is not assailed in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That apart, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the interest awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of 13% per annum as against the claim of the first respondent at 18% per annum is reasonable.

4. Assailing the said order, the unsuccessful petitioner in the original petition has filed the present appeal.

5. Before adverting to the merits of the case, let us analyse the scope of interference by the Court in the matter of arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which reads as under:

“Section 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.

1. Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and subsection (3).

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 falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or

v. the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or

b. the Court finds that-

i. the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settle