JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for State and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 39 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1940') by the appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 1.12.1995 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bulandshahar in Original Suits No. 602 of 1994 and 665 of 1994.

3. The parties are referred to as State/Appellant and Contractor/Respondent.

4. Facts of the present case are that dispute arose between the contractor and the State, namely the appellant and one Harish Chandra was appointed as an arbitrator and his appointment was sought to be revoked by the State which was stayed by the Court below and which was pending before this Court. The arbitrator gave his award accepting the demands raised by the contractor. The said arbitral award was sought to be made the Rule of the Court under the Act, 1940 which was opposed by the appellant herein. The Court below accepted the award rejected the objection raised by the appellant herein. The claimant's claims came to be allowed. Full opportunity was given to the appellant both by Arbitrator and Court below.

5. The judgment of the Court below is brought into challenge by the appellant. During the pendency of this litigation the ground that Harish Chandra could not have acted as an arbitrator was given up. Harish Chandra was permitted to act as an arbitrator vide order dated 18.1.1994. Against the said order appeal was preferred before this Court and also a writ was also preferred by State which culminated into orders being passed against the State. The arbitrator thereafter had passed the orders.

6. The arbitrator's award was assailed by the State before the concerned Court which has held against the State and upheld the award and made it Rule of the Court.

7. Detailed claim petition was filed by the claimants before the arbitrator appointed by the State from the panel it has suggested. However, they were not satisfied with the arbitrator and litigation as herein above mentioned continued. The State filed objection No. 30/33 of the Act, 1940 challenging the award of the arbitrator dated 27.7.1994 before the Court of concerned jurisdiction. However the said objection have been rejected. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that the arbitrator and learned Judge did not consider the contract in its proper prospective and have committed mistake which is an error apparent on the face of the record calling for interference by this Court. The appellant has challenged the same before this Court.

8. While going through the record the principles enunciated for either interference or modifying the award are embodied which will have to be analyzed and looked into.

9. The principles for interfering in arbitral proceedings are time and again enunciated by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Recently in First Appeal From Order No. 714 of 2005 (State of U.P. and others v. J.M. Construction Company) and in First Appeal From Order No. 1237 of 2000 (Harindra Singh v. Union of India and another) decided on 8.7.2019. The facts as shown above have been properly appreciated by the arbitrator and also the Court below and, therefore, unless the contours of interference are proved by the appellant, this Court would be loathe in interfering in the arbitration matter.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwalla, (1997) 1 SCC 469 and Puri Construction Pvt. Limited v. Union of India for the purposes of pendente life and interest.

Judgments on Arbitration Act, 1940

11. (i) Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gupta Brothers Steel Tubes Ltd. (2009) 10 SCC 63.

"......The Courts below have currently held that the arbitrator has gone into the issues of facts thoroughly, applied his mind to the pleadings, evidence before h