SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) OMP No. 103/2001 the respondent was awarded the Contract of handling and transportation of containers from CFS, Patparganj to Tughlakabad Railway-Siding and vice-versa for a period of four years w. e. f. 28. 1. 1995 in pursuance to agreement dated 23. 1. 1995. The respondents continue to perform their obligations under the contract. A dispute, however, arose between the parties relating to deployment of Reach Stacker, deductions on account of delay in transportation and penalties on account of delay in stuffing or destuffing of containers. In view of the existence of the Arbitration Clause No. XX, the Managing Director of the petitioner appointed Shri B. K. Sharma, IAS (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award dated 11. 1. 2001 directing the petitioner to refund to the respondents a sum of Rs. 18,20,000/ -. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the objections under Sections 28 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). ( 2 ) IN the petition some effort has been made to challenge the findings of the arbitrator on appreciation of material and evidence. This is not the scope of scrutiny by this Court under the provisions of the said Act as enunciated by the apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. , AIR 2003 sc 2629 . ( 3 ) THE principal contention stated in the objections is that the award directs the refund of Rs. 10,20,000/- on account of non-supply of Reach Stacker erroneously and in violation of Section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872 on account of the fact that no such amount was separately deducted by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner moved an application under Section 33 of the said Act but the same was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner was seeking an interpretation of a portion of the award relating to the payment made to the respondent for the work done upto the commissioning of the Reach Stacker. ( 5 ) THE respondents in their reply have explained the position regarding this amount of Rs. 10,20,000/ -. It has been pointed out that this issue has been considered at depth by the Arbitrator as the Reach Stacker was stationed by the respondent on 13. 4. ( 5 ) THE respondents in their reply have explained the position regarding this amount of Rs. 10,20,000/ -. It has been pointed out that this issue has been considered at depth by the Arbitrator as the Reach Stacker was stationed by the respondent on 13. 4. 1995 and the same became operative from 15. 5. 1995. The amount had been deducted for the period from 2. 3. 1995 till 14. 5. 1995 when the reach Stacker became operative. The claim of the respondent which has been allowed is on the basis that the petitioner had arbitrarily withheld part of the amount billed by the respondent on account of non-supply of Reach Stacker. The respondents have also emphasised the fact that as per the terms of the Agreement it was the duty of the petitioner to provide the Reach Stacker and only in case of inability of the petitioner to do so was the respondent responsible for providing their own Reach Stacker. ( 6 ) THE Arbitrator has recorded the finding on this aspect and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not able to provide its own Reach Stacker and took a long time to respond to the various points raised in the communications of the respondent including Exhibit R-10 dated 7. 3. 1995 and Exhibit R-12 dated 30. 3. 1995. The petitioner stated in no uncertain terms that they were procuring the Reach Stacker of their own which would however take six months to arrive at site. The Arbitrator found that the petitioner had taken contradictory stand and the fact remained that it is the respondent who brought the Reach Stacker to site which started operating from 15. 5. 1995. Thus no blame could have been fastened on to the respondents and the penalty imposed as part of the larger amount was found not sustainable. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid finding of the Arbitrator is based on the material and findings placed before the Arbitrator and it is not as if there is separate amount awarded as refund which was never deducted by the petitioner which is the case sought to be made out by the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I find no merit in the petition. ( 9 ) DISMISSED. IA No. 3492/2001 1. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I find no merit in the petition. ( 9 ) DISMISSED. IA No. 3492/2001 1. This application has been wrongly numbered as this is only a copy of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the said Act before the arbitrator. 2. Application stands disposed of. .