question whether the appellant herein could establish any ground under Section 34(2) of the Act so as to compel interference with the arbitral award. On such consideration, obviously, the District Court, as per the impugned order, found that the appellant herein could not make out any case to set aside an award under any of the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act. When that be the position, no interference with the impugned order and consequential setting aside of the arbitral award is possible in exercise of power under Section 37 of the Act, unless the appellant could establish that the arbitral award was perverse and based on no evidence or that the same was passed relying on evidence which no prudent man would have acted upon and if such contentions raised were not appropriately dealt with by the District Court. We have carefully gone through the grounds 'A' to 'F' raised in this appeal. Strictly saying, the appellant cannot be heard to contend that KDSC got no liability to effect payment as ground 'B' itself would reveal that for the materials brought to the site for carrying out the construction based on the bills produced by the respondent part payment was admittedly effected. That apart, the fact that the tender was also for supply is not disputed and the appeal itself would reveal that the invitation of tender on 3.4.2001, which was awarded to the respondent, was for supply, erection, testing and commissioning of
