JUDGMENT

1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1996') against the order dated 10.09.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No.157/2008 (142/2003) whereby the appeal, filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 by the appellants, has been partly allowed by reducing the interest and the award dated 15.01.2003, passed by the Sole Arbitrator, has been upheld.

2. The facts, in nutshell, are that a work order was issued to the respondent-claimant for construction of 132 MLD Water Treatment Plant at Kekri, District Ajmer for supply, erection of mechanical equipments, civil works and electrical works under Bisalpur Project. The total value of contract was fixed at Rs.4,37,33,250/-, as lump-sum turnkey project and the work was to be completed till 13.03.1993 and after the grant of provisional extension of time to the claimant, the work was ultimately completed on 29.11.1996. The claimant had not received payment from appellants and as such, there was a dispute between the parties.

3. This Court, vide order dated 01.02.2002, appointed Mr.D.P.Jain as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The respondent-claimant filed its claim petition before the Sole Arbitrator and made a claim of Rs.2,56,15,119.57p. The appellants filed reply to the claim petition.

4. The Sole Arbitrator, after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 12 issues, which are reproduced hereunder:-

"1. Whether the claimant is entitled to get the various amounts on various counts as mentioned in the statement of claim in para nos.1 to 5 at page no.61? OPC

2. Whether excess payment was made by the respondent to the claimant" OPR

3. Whether the decision of the respondents during the pendency of arbitration proceedings and communicated by the respondents to the claimant vide letter dated 16.3.2002 is tenable in the eyes of law, as to whether imposing of the LD to extend of 4.1% of the contract value is sustainable? OPC/OPR

4. Whether the respondents are entitled to get the counter claim as mentioned on page 26 of the counter claim filed by respondent? OPR

5. Whether the claim of the claimant is time barred or not? OPR

6. Whether the time period was essence of the contract or not? OPR

7. Whether delays in submissions of drawings and designs of various units in the light of clause 106 of special conditions of contract are attributable to the claimant or not? OPR

8. Whether delay in supply and installation of flow meter was attributable to the claimant or not? OPR

9. Whether delay in supply and installation of electrical and mechanical equipment are attributable to the claimant or not? OPR

10. Whether delay in construction of whole treatment plant is attributable to the claimant or not? OPR

11. Whether delay in part commissioning in Feb. 1995 and full commissioning in Dec. 1996 are attributable to the claimant or not? OPR

12. Relief."

5. The Sole Arbitrator, while allowing the claim of the respondent-claimant, passed the award dated 15.01.2003 of sum of Rs.1,25,55,232/- along with interest @ 15% from 01.03.2002 till its realization.

6. The appellants, felt aggrieved by the award dated 15.01.2003, passed by the Sole Arbitrator, filed an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the District Judge, Ajmer and the case was later on transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer for adjudication.

7. The Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer, vide its order dated 10.09.2012, partly allowed the application filed by the appellants and the interest of Rs.28,44,951/- was reduced from the total award of Rs.1,25,55,232/- and it was held that the respondent-claimant will be entitled for an amount of Rs.97,10,241/- with interest @ 15% w.e.f. 01.03.2002 to 15.01.2003 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the award till realization.

8. The appellants