JUDGMENT : Shekhar B. Saraf, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nimai Dass, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Manu Ghildyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Tathagat Kumar with Mr. Divyanshu Chaubey and Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order passed under Section 34 of the Act dated February 24, 2021. 3. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act was rejected with the following remarks:- 4. It is to be noted that the only ground of appeal was that the Arbitrator continued with the proceedings of arbitration in spite of the fact that a review application was pending before this Court. The Arbitrator in paragraph 6 of the award has, in great detail, dealt with the issue which clearly indicates the number of opportunities which were granted to the appellant herein. In spite of the said opportunities, the appellant herein refused to appear and participate in the arbitration proceedings. In light of the same, on December 3, 2014, the Arbitrator by a detailed order decided to proceed ex parte in the matter. The relevant portion of the order dated December 3, 2014 has been quoted in the award and is also quoted herein below for better reference:- "After considering and taking into account the letters sent by the officer concerned and upon the pleading on behalf of the appellant-claimant, in my view, there is no dispute to the effect that respondent State is having full knowledge of the arbitral proceedings and they are not deliberately appearing before the Arbitrator only to defeat the claim of the appellant-claimant. But, in spite of the facts and circumstances of the present case, though I can reserve the judgment for making the award today but only to follow the principles of natural justice and to give last opportunity to respondent State I am adjourning the case for the next date with a clear direction that in case of failure in appearing or by filing rebuttal of the claim by the respondent State, on the next date, in case they do not put their appearance and file rebuttal there will be no option except to reserve the judgment for the purposes of giving an ex-parte award on the basis of consideration and merits of the claim of the claimant." 5. All these facts were taken into account by the District Judge, Mirzapur while deciding the matter against the appellant. The law with regard to the limited grounds available to an appellant in Section 34 of the Act as well as in Section 37 of the Act has been settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. It is clear from the facts herein that the Arbitrator has acted bonafide, and therefore, this Court finds no need to interfere with the order passed under Section 34 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.