JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10/10/2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Misc. Civil Case No. 28/2010. Vide judgment dated 10/10/2014, the application preferred by the appellant-State under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 14/09/2009 was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that except the point of counter-claim dealt with by the Arbitrator, the order dated 10/10/2014 does not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel submits that the original period for completion of the contract was 20/10/1994 but the same was extended till September, 1995. He, therefore, submits that despite the fact that the contract period was extended, the respondent Contractor could not complete the task given to him by the contract agreement. Learned counsel further submits that the State is, therefore, rightly entitled for the penalty imposed on the respondent.

4. He further submits that no interest is payable on the interest already awarded by the sole arbitrator in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. M/s. S.L. Arora & Company 2010(3) SCC 690.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the contract period was extended on the application preferred by them on account of the difficulties faced for procurement of raw-materials. He further submits that the work could not be completed for the fault which squarely lies on the part of the respondent State Authorities for not providing the requisites as agreed between the parties to the agreement. He, therefore, submits that the Arbitrator rightly rejected the imposition of penalty by the State upon the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in these circumstances, the application preferred under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was rightly rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge vide its order dated 10/10/2014.

6. He further submits that the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that no interest is payable on the interest already awarded by the sole arbitrator is not sustainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited vs. Governor, State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189. It has been reiterated in the case of Munshi Ram & Associates vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 14658/2015) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and I have gone through the award dated 14/09/2009, the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge dated 10/10/2014 as well as the other relevant record of the case.

8. The fact that the counter claim of the appellant State was not sustainable because the work could not be completed by the respondent contractor within the stipulated time for the reason that the extension of time for completion of work was granted by the State on the applications preferred by the contractor. The applications were preferred by the contractor for extension of the time on the ground that requisite facilities as agreed by the appellant State were not provided to the contractor and, therefore, there is no question of the penalty being imposed on contractor for not completing the work in time. The arbitrator has rightly noted that the respondent is not liable to pay any penalty with respect to the materials procured by the Department from the other places for completing work in question. Since the delay in completion of the project is not solely attributed to the respondent contractor, therefore, the liability to pay the penalty cannot be fastened on the respondent alone. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned District and Sessions Judge vide its order dated 10/10/2014 does not call for any interference by this Court.

9. So far as the submission of