The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Concession Agreement and the limitations on the arbitrator's jurisdiction, as well as the requirement for evidence to support claims.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Bhandari, J. - The appellant - State has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Arbitration Act’) aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur whereby objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were rejected and against the award dated 18.03.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma (Retired).

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant issued a notice inviting tender on 08.04.2002 for widening and strengthening of Sikar-Jhunjhunu-Loharu Road. A corrigendum was issued on 18.05.2002. The respondent submitted its bid on 27.06.2002 for Rs.46,19,88,000/- with an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 37.98%. The total concession period specified by the respondent was 103 months and 15 days, including 24 months required for construction of the Project. The bid of the respondent was lowest and was approved by the Empowered Committee on 05.12.2002 and a letter of acceptance was issued on 16.12.2002. In pursuance thereof, a Concession Agreement was entered into on 14.02.2003 between the appellant and the respondent. Thereafter, a Lease Agreement dated 08.07.2003 was also entered into between the parties.

3. Due to objections from different quarters, work could not be completed and the period was extended by 49 days vide order dated 12.03.2004, which was approved by the Empowered Board on 11.05.2004. After completion of the work, the toll tax collection started on Toll Booth Nos.1 & 2 on 21.07.2004. Out of initial 6 toll collecting booths, due to agitation, the same were reduced to 4 vide order dated 24.02.2005. Since the toll collection booths were reduced, the period of toll collection was extended. The Empowered Committee extended the time till 23.12.2017, however, a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as ’the PIL’) was filed before the Rajasthan High Court, which was ultimately disposed of and time was extended till 19.09.2016 by the authorities instead of 23.12.2017.

4. It is contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant -State that the learned Arbitrator has completely overlooked the provisions of the Contract entered into between the parties and has erred in awarding Rs.24,38,00,000/- for major repairs and interest thereupon @ 11.75% from 10.03.2011 till actual realization. It is also contended that in the PIL filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the claimant is not entitled to any extension beyond 19.09.2016. The major repair work for which the claimant is claiming amount was completed in November, 2012 and the claim thereof was made in the year 2016 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation. It is argued that from the award itself, it is evident that the learned Arbitrator has awarded Rs.24,38,00,000/-for major repairs and interest @ 11.75% on major repairs w.e.f 10.03.2011 till actual realization, which goes to show that the repairs were completed on 10.03.2011 and the claim made in the year 2016 is barred by limitation. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that as per the terms of the Contract, the claimant was entitled to claim only 15% as interest on the sum invested and 15% profit. The claimant has received a sum of Rs.167 Crores including the deposit in the Bank Account pursuant to the directions of the High Court.

5. It is contended that the authorities have rightly reduced the period of the tender from 23.12.2017 to 19.09.2016 and there was no justification whatsoever for the Arbitrator to award compensation for 461 days i.e. Rs.29,88,83,720/-. It is also contended that no directions were given to the claimant to recarpet the roads. The only direction was to repair the roads in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the authorities. It is further contended that the amount lying deposited in S