JUDGMENT A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 27.05.2008 passed by the District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act') for setting aside the Award dated 03.09.2004. 2. Pursuant to the agreement dated 29.12.1999 and supplementary agreement dated 17.01.2000 between the parties in connection with the supply and milling of the paddy for the period, a dispute arose with regard to the short supply of the rice in proportion to the paddy supplied to the appellant-firm. Consequently, the Arbitrator was appointed, who after inviting the claims of both the parties, passed an Award dated 03.09.2004 holding the appellant liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,61,740/- as on 29.02.2000 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.2000 till the date of realization. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said Award, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala, while observing that no grounds were made out for setting aside the same as per Section 34 of the Act. 3. The prime contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that initially Mr. K.D. Arora, was appointed as Arbitrator and the District Manager could not change the Arbitrator unless he vacates the office by way of superannuation or otherwise. Thus, the order dated 29.10.2003 entrusting the arbitration case to Shri Gulwant Singh after withdrawing the same from Shri K.D. Arora, was illegal. As such, the Award in question, which was passed against the terms of the agreement, cannot be sustained. In this regard, it may be observed that Clause 7 of the basic agreement dated 29.12.1999, which governs the handing over or entrustment of the disputes, reads as under:- “7. All disputes and differences arising out of or in any manner touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever (except as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be referred to the sole arbitrator of the M.D. Markfed or any person appointed by him in this behalf. All disputes and differences arising out of or in any manner touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever (except as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be referred to the sole arbitrator of the M.D. Markfed or any person appointed by him in this behalf. There will be no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is or was an employee of Markfed or that he had to deal with the matter in which the agreement relates and that in the course of his duties as such in employment of the Markfed he had expressed vies on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The award of such arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties to this agreement. It is a term of this agreement that in the event of the arbitration being transferred or vacating his office, dying or being unable to act for any reason the M.D. at the time of such transfer, vacation of office, death or inability shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator. Such, a person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from the stage where it was left by his predecessor.” 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid clause transpires that ample powers have been given to the Managing Director to appoint the sole Arbitrator. Thus, this clause empowers the Managing Director to appoint the sole Arbitrator of the M.D. Markfed or any other person at any time and the party could not raise objection to it, except in certain circumstances, as referred in the said clause. He can also appoint another person to act as Arbitrator in case the Arbitrator is transferred, vacates office, dies or otherwise becomes unable to act as such for any reason. The order dated 29.10.2010 reveals that the Managing Director, Markfed had initially appointed Shri K.D. Arora, as Arbitrator on 29.12.1999, but in partial modification of the said order, he appointed Kanwar Gulwant Singh, IAS (Retd.) in his place. In the light of the unfettered powers in case of appointment of Arbitrator, it cannot be challenged. The order dated 29.10.2010 reveals that the Managing Director, Markfed had initially appointed Shri K.D. Arora, as Arbitrator on 29.12.1999, but in partial modification of the said order, he appointed Kanwar Gulwant Singh, IAS (Retd.) in his place. In the light of the unfettered powers in case of appointment of Arbitrator, it cannot be challenged. It was left to the satisfaction of the Managing Director to appoint any Arbitrator, if he finds that the Arbitrator appointed earlier, had become unable to act and such order could not be questioned by the appellant in view of the specific bar created in the agreement. 5. While taking the case from another angle, the appellant continued associating with the Arbitrator and did not raise any such objection till the proceedings culminated and ultimately, the Award was passed on 03.09.2004. Now the appellant is estopped to raise the plea that the Managing Director had no power to appoint another Arbitrator. 6. I have also perused the written arguments filed by learned counsel for the appellant on 30.07.2004 before the District Judge, Patiala. Those also do not indicate, as to if any such objection was raised before the Court. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to state that the arbitration proceedings could not be handed over to Kanwar Gulwant Singh, the sole Arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director. 7. As regard the quantity supplied, milled and the shortfall occurred, these facts are not much in dispute. The Arbitrator, after considering marathon arguments and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, discussed about the shortfall, the price thereof and the net amount which was payable to the respondent after adjustment of the amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- in detail. Relevant part of the Award dated 03.09.2004 is reproduced as under:- “Taken at this rate the quantity of paddy against 54809 bags comes to 26472.75 quintals as against 25924.65.700 quintals wrongly calculated by the respondent. The quantity of rice against this paddy @ 68% comes to 18001.64 quintals or say 18002 quintals against 17628.676 wrongly calculated by the respondent. It is admitted from the documents placed on record by the parties that the paddy supplied was of 'A' grade. The quantity of rice against this paddy @ 68% comes to 18001.64 quintals or say 18002 quintals against 17628.676 wrongly calculated by the respondent. It is admitted from the documents placed on record by the parties that the paddy supplied was of 'A' grade. The price thereof as determined by the G.O.I./GCI for the said crop year was Rs.870/-after including incidentals and not Rs.817/-per quintal (as wrongly taken by the respondent) which was the rate for common paddy as per the relevant notification placed on record. Therefore, the cost of this rice @ 870/-per quintal comes to Rs.1,56,61,740.00 and not Rs.1,44,03,702/-as wrongly calculated by the respondent. It is admitted that a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- has been paid by the respondent to the claimant. Therefore, only the balance amount of Rs.16,61,740/- is payable by the respondent to the claimant as on 29.02.2000. The amounts of milling charges, stitching charges and security amount cannot be adjusted towards the amount payable by the respondent as these amounts relate to the period prior to the execution of agreement. Accordingly, the claim petition of the claimant is allowed to this extent and the Award is given of the amount of R.16,61,740/-as on 29.09.2000 with further interest @ 15% P.A. from 01.03.2000 till the date of realization in favour of the claimant and against the respondents who shall be jointly and severally responsible to pay the same.” 8. The claims regarding the cost of 'bardana' recoverable and the price of 1630 bags amounting to Rs.2,31,450/-, which was not covered by the agreement, were already excluded by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has also discussed the counter claims and given due reasoning to decide the same, so as the District Judge, Patiala. No illegality, much less infirmity, has been established on the record, which may indicate that the Arbitrator ever misconducted the proceedings. Similarly, the order passed by the District Judge, Patiala, on scrutiny, stands to reason and no such defect or illegality has been indicated, which may warrant interference. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.