Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1 This appeal is directed against order passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur, dated 7.2.2006 whereby, objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) by the appellant for setting aside an ex parte award dated 8.8.2002 was dismissed. 2 The District Judge, Ferozepur, while dismissing the objection under Section 34 of the Act, held that "moreover, as already held above, the petitioner firm has now waived his right to raise any such objection because it preferred to remain absent from the arbitral proceedings". 3 Still aggrieved, present appeal has been filed by the appellant, in which jurisdiction of the Arbitrator has been challenged. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the appellant cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator due to waiver, in view of Section 4 of the Act, which is reproduced as under :- "4. Waiver of right to object: a party who knows that - (a) any provision of this part from which the parties may derogate or (b) Any requirement under the arbitration agreement, has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to such non-compliance without undue delay or, if a time limit is provided for stating that objection within that period of time, shall be deemed to have waived his right to so object." 5 Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. Motorola India Private Limted 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 415:2008(5) RAJ. 408:2009(2) Supreme Court Cases 337, to support her contention. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused Section 4 of the Act and judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents. It is held by the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra) that "Pursuant to Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a party which knows that a requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and still proceeds with the arbitration without raising an objection, as soon as possible, waives their right to object. The High Court had appointed an arbitrator in response to the petition filed by the appellants (sic respondent). At this point, the matter was closed unless further objections were to be raised. The High Court had appointed an arbitrator in response to the petition filed by the appellants (sic respondent). At this point, the matter was closed unless further objections were to be raised. If further objections were to be made after this order, they should have been made prior to the first arbitration hearing. But the appellants had not raised any such objections. The appellants, therefore, had clearly failed to meet the stated requirement to object to arbitration without delay. As such their right to object is to be waived". 7 In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.