P.K. LOHRA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government of Rajasthan, through the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, represented by Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Pali, under Section 37 (1) (B) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act'), against order dated 28th of February, 2018 of District Judge, Pali (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by Government of Rajasthan under Section 34 of the Act and refused to set aside or modify arbitral award dated 31st of May, 2016 passed by Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Facts, in brief, are that an agreement came to be executed on 21st of November 1996 between appellant Government of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer and respondent TCI Infrastructure Finance Limited for construction of Pali Bye-pass Road on Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis on NH14 to be completed by 04.12.1998. The amount incurred in construction of bye-pass was to be recovered from toll collection. The respondent Company agreed to construct the said work for Rs. 810 Lakhs and agreed to collect toll in concession period of 179 months with two year construction period. The physical possession of the land was handed over on 4th of December, 1996 and the respondent Company started work on 18th of December, 1996. The respondent Company requested the Chief Engineer to increase the concession period on the ground that the land free from all encumbrances was not allotted in time and as the worked delayed the concession period has to be rescheduled. On refusal of request to extend the concession period by the State Govt., the respondent Company taken up the matter before this Court by way of S.B. Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.137/2011. Acceding to the prayer of the respondent Company, this Court issued directions to form Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of pleadings formulated issues for determination and after hearing parties passed Award on 31st of May, 2016 in favour of respondent Company.

3. Against the said arbitral award, State filed an application under Section 34 of the Act before learned Court below raising objection that the learned Arbitral Tribunal ignored documentary evidence and the pleadings of State of Rajasthan while passing the Award and it was also pleaded that burden to prove the issues was wrongly shifted on State of Rajasthan whereas it was the burden of respondent Company to prove its case beyond all probabilities. In reply thereto, the respondent Company supported the Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned Court below has rejected the application of State of Rajasthan vide order dated 28.02.2018, which has led it to file present misc. appeal under Section 37 of the Act to quash and set aside the arbitral award.

4. Mr. Mukesh Dave, Govt. Counsel, submits that the findings of learned Arbitral Tribunal are not based on sound appreciation of evidence and materials available on record but that aspect has been completely eschewed by the learned Court below in the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the arbitral award as well as impugned order is vitiated in law. The learned counsel would contend that arbitral award has been passed transgressing the jurisdiction by Arbitral Tribunal, which ought to have been examined by the learned Court below under Section 34 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the arbitral award is based on complete misreading of the agreement but the same has not been properly considered by the learned Court below in the impugned order, as such, the arbitral award as well as impugned order are per se vulnerable, and therefore cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Anil Bhansali, submits that arbitral award is based on sound reasonings covering all the issues, and therefore same has not been tinkered with rightly by the lea