Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) GENESIS of both these appeals is arbitral award dated 20th January, 2007 rendered by sole arbitrator, Mr. N.P. Mathur on being appointed vide order dated 08.04.2004, passed by Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(2.) IN CMA No. 3525/2011, laid by the Contractor challenge is given to the impugned order dated 07.01.2009 of learned District Judge, Jaisalmer to the limited extent of rate of interest determined by sole arbitrator slashing it from 18% to 7% per annum for all the three stages, namely, (i) from the stage of accrual of cause of action till filing of arbitration proceedings; (ii) interest pendente lite, and (iii) future interest from the date of award till realization. On the other hand, Department in CMA No. 3025/2011 has assailed the arbitral award as well as impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Jaisalmer in toto. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by learned District Judge to the limited extent, whereby the interest awarded by the sole arbitrator at the rate of 18% per annum has been reduced to 7% per annum, the Contractor has laid appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act of 1996'). By the order impugned, learned District Judge, Jaisalmer has disposed of the application of the Department under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 7% per annum and affirmed the rest part of arbitral award dated 20th January, 2007.
(3.) SUCCINCTLY stated, facts of the case are that the Contractor was awarded a work of transportation of materials for widening of NH 15, from KM 290 to KM 310, vide work order dated 09.05.1988 for a sum of Rs. 22,51,156/ -. The said work was allotted to the Contractor on the terms and conditions, which were agreed between the Contractor and Department and in this respect an agreement No. 9 of 1988 -89 was entered into. The date of commencement of work was 24th May 1988 and deadline for completion of the work was 23rd November 1989. Since the Contractor left the work incomplete, the Department issued notices to the Contractor for completing the work, which remained uncompleted and thereafter the Department got completed the remaining work from other person at the risk and cost of the Contractor in accordance with Clause 2 and 3 of the contract agreement. The Contractor raised dispute with regard to payment and sought reference of the matter to the sole arbitrator. Vide order dated 08.04.2004, Mr. N.P. Mathur was appointed as sole arbitrator. The Contractor submitted its claim before the sole arbitrator, while dividing it in 8 parts, details of which are as under: - Claim No. 1 Payment of final bill - Rs. 1,35,374/ - Claim No. 2 Payment of Security Deposit deducted from running bills - Rs. 1,08,550/ - Claim No. 3 Payment of price escalation charges under clause 45 of the agreement - Rs. 1,66,355/ - Claim No. 4 Payment on account of idleness of machinery and labour contractor - Rs. 2,47,499/ - Claim No. 5 Loss of overhead charges due to prolonging of work - Rs. 1,53,210/ - Claim No. 6 Litigation charges - Rs. 25,000/ -. Claim No. 7 Refund of wrong recovery - Rs. 70,000/ - (deducted towards recovery of other division). Claim No. 8 Payment of interest @ 24% on total withheld amount.;