1. State of Rajasthan and Public Works Department are in appeal under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') against the order dated 09.10.2024 of the Commercial Court, Jaipur (for short 'the court') dismissing the objections filed u/S. 34 of the Act of 1996.

2. The State Government issued tender notices on 08.08.2003 inviting bids for construction of Pali Bypass, Jodhpur - Sumerpur road on Build - Operate - Transfer (for brevity 'BOT') basis. The respondent was successful bidder and letter of acceptance (for short 'LOA') was issued on 19.02.2004. The concession period was of seventy months, out of which eighteen months were for construction. Concession agreement provided for handing over of project land within sixty days extendable to one hundred twenty days. In last week of July, 2004, the respondent handed over cheques for cost of land acquisition. On 18.10.2004 major portion of the land was handed over to the respondent. The construction work was started on 18.10.2004. The balance land was handed over on 23.03.2006. After completion of construction of Railway Over Bridge (for brevity 'ROB') on 29.04.2006, the respondent started collecting toll from 03.05.2006. The steering committee on 31.05.2006 extended concession period by three months and ten days. The steering committee in the meeting held on 24.07.2008 considered the grievance of the respondent that three months extension was not sufficient. The steering committee in meeting held on 04.08.2010 again recommended extension of concession period. The respondent was informed that concession period shall end on 17.08.2010. There was also dispute between the parties with regard to date of commencement of concession period. In the year 2010 the respondent filed an application u/S. 9 of the Act of 1996. Vide order dated 13.08.2010, status quo was ordered to be maintained. The application was disposed of on 23.01.2012 with direction that toll collected by respondent upto 22.01.2012 shall be subject to the decision in arbitration. The respondent gave notice dated 17.09.2010 for appointment of the arbitrator. The application u/S. 11 of the Act of 1996 filed in the year 2010 was allowed on 18.02.2014. The arbitration proceedings culminated in award dated 23.06.2019. The arbitrator held that commencement date of work shall be 23.03.2006 and allowed the respondent to retain toll collected upto 22.01.2012. The losses claimed for non - closure of the Level Railway Crossing (for brevity 'LRC') were accepted. The respondent was found entitled to receive a sum of Rs.50,28,27,944/- and the amount included interest upto 31.03.2018. The payment was to be made within three months and on failure the respondent was entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. The counter claim of the appellant was dismissed. The objections filed by the appellant u/S. 34 of the Act of 1996 were dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2024. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that physical possession of major portion of the project site was handed over on 18.10.2004 and balance on 23.03.2006. The cause of action for the respondent for delay in handing over the physical possession of the project site accrued in the year 2006, the claim filed is time barred.
3.1 It is contended that construction work was started by respondent on 18.10.2004 and the balance land to be handed over was small portion, the arbitrator erred in determining the date of commencement as 23.03.2006. The argument is that the period for collection of toll was extended beyond the prescribed period of fifty two months.
3.2 Learned counsel contended that neither there is any clause in the concession agreement for cash reimbursement of losses nor for awarding the compound interest.
3.3. It is argued that arbitrator could not have gone beyond the terms and conditions of concession agreement and the award is patently illegal. Reliance is placed upon decisions of the Supreme Court in State