JUDGMENT :

1. The State in this appeal assails the order passed by the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II dated 20.03.2024, whereby the Commercial Court has rejected the objections raised by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) and has affirmed the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently submitted that the learned Arbitrator failed to take into consideration the provisions enumerated in the contract and has passed an award without appreciating the facts and circumstances. It is his submission that the concerned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the entire contract was time related and if the same would not have been completed within the time frame, the State had full right to determine the contract.

3. He submits that the finding of the Tribunal of the contract not being time bound related is perverse. He also submits that the concerned Engineer had no power to extend the time period of the contract and a wrong presumption has been drawn by the Arbitrator that it can be assumed there must be some obstacles in construction of the road for 98 Kms.

4 Learned counsel has painstakingly taken us to the various provisions of the contract agreement and also to the view taken by the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel submits that the findings of the Tribunal with regards to the duties of the Engineer being Executive and quasi judicial is wholly erroneous. The Engineer being employed by the employer, i.e., State of Rajasthan, was bound by the instructions issued by the State and its Chief Engineer.

6. The learned counsel has further taken us to the order passed by the Commercial Court No. 2, Jaipur. While deciding the objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to submit that so far as Clauses 44 and 47 regarding power to extend the time limitation and imposing of liquidated damages are concerned, the same were not applicable as the contract was by the World Bank Project and the World Bank directions were required to be followed.

7. In view of the fact that the contractor had failed to perform within the time limit prescribed, the determination of the contract cannot be said to be unjustified.

8. We have considered the submissions.

9. In this case, a Tribunal was appointed consisting of three members. The claimant nominated one Mr. M.D. Deshmukh, as the Arbitrator, while the IRC nominated one Shri I.J. Mamtani and the State named one Mr. J.M. Malhotra, as Arbitrator.

10. The Tribunal commenced its hearing from 07.07.1997 and passed an award on 14.01.2008, further the award was corrected by issuing a corrigendum award on 01.03.2008. The summary of the award is noted as below:

6. Further Direction by the AT

The Respondent Employer are permitted the time of 90 days from the date of publishing and signing the award for payment by the Respondents Employer to the Claimants Contractor. In case the Respondents do not pay the amount to the Claimants, the Claimants shall be paid the interest @14% on the gross amount which includes the awarded amount for the claims and the interest upto the date of the award, thereafter, 

SUMMARY OF AWARD

11. The objections to the said award were filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the District Court & Sessions Judge on 28.05.2008, which was later on transferred to the Commercial Court (supra) on 03.02.2018 and, thereafter, the objections were decided on 20.03.2024.

12. We noticed that more than 25 years have elapsed since the initial arbitration proceedings commenced. The Act of 1996 essentially was passed with the purpose of deciding disputes in an effective and quick manner. However, we see and note that in almost all the cases where arbitration awards are passed, the same are taken up by way of raising objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as if an appeal has been filed. Section 34 of the Act of 1996, provides