JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan by which challenge to the award dated 29.02.2000 passed by the sole Arbitrator as well as the order dated 23.05.2002 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kota (Raj.) has been made.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that the appellants invited tenders for construction of 13 km of road in Kota vide their notice dated 22.05.1995 and as per the Notice Inviting Tenders (for short, ‘the NIT’) tenders were opened on 22.07.1995 and the tender submitted by the respondents were found to be lowest and the same was accepted. The project was supposed to commence from 08.12.1995 and completed by 07.12.1997. When the work was not completed within the stipulated time and the payment was not released then a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute as per the terms of contracts/agreements executed between the parties. The respondents submitted a statement of claim, claiming an amount of Rs. 79,18,229/-. The appellant-State submitted its reply to the statement of the claim along with counter-claim for liquidated damages for the work not completed by the respondents. It was pleaded in the counter-claim that around 70% of the work was done by the respondents and the rest of the work was completed by some other agencies, hence the loss was caused to the respondents.

3. After considering the documents, statement and the counter -claim, the Arbitrator passed an award of Rs. 7,22,699/-in favour of the respondents with an interest @ 18% till the date of decree or till the date of payment of actual amount, whichever is earlier.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award dated 29.02.2000 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, the appellant-State submitted objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996). After hearing counsels for both the sides, learned District Judge, Kota rejected the objections vide judgment and order dated 23.05.2002.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order and by the Arbitral award dated 29.02.2000, the instant appeal has been preferred.

6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent was supposed to complete the work within the stipulated time i.e 240 days but only 70% work was done and the rest of the work was completed by the other agencies due to which the appellant State has suffered losses, hence the counter-claim was filed before the Arbitrator for getting liquidated damages to the tune of Rs. 109.30 lacs. Counsel submits that without considering the averments and submissions, the counter claim was rejected and the statement of the claim of the respondent was allowed by the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator has gone straight ahead in awarding an amount of Rs. 4,57,200/-for providing diversion for running traffic. Counsel submits that there was no running traffic for which any diversion was required without any basis. Thus, the Arbitrator has passed the award. Counsel submits that under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the respondents themselves have failed to honor their fundamental contractual reciprocal promises, because 100% of the land required for road work and the same was not made available to the respondent. Hence, the delay was caused by the department for which the respondents cannot be blamed. Counsel submits that even payment for 70% work was not made to the respondents. Hence, under these circumstances no option was left with the respondents other than to stop the work. Counsel submits that counter-claim filed by the appellants was rejected by the sole Arbitrator with the same award, which was passed in favour of the respondents but the State was under an obligation to submit two different appeals before the Court of learned Dist