the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- which was alleged to have been paid to the respondent, the petitioner for the first time during the course of the cross examination of the witness examined by the respondent made such allegation. No such issue was raised by the petitioner in the written statement. He submits that the petitioner had used the money due and payable to the respondent since 2007 till the payment. Though the respondent had demanded interest from 2007 itself, the learned arbitrator did not grant the interest from 2007 upto the date of payment. He submits that though the respondent had demanded interest at the rate of 24% per annum, the learned arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of 18% considering the provisions of the partnership deed under which the partnership firm had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% to the partners on the capital account. He submits that the learned arbitrator has rendered a findings of fact which are not perverse and thus this court can not interfere with such findings of fact under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
