Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) ALL these connected miscellaneous appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act') by the appellant State and its authorities against the very same respondent M/s. Om Construction company, involve identical points in controversy as well as reliefs, except awarding sum under few different heads by the sole arbitrator. The challenge in these appeals is to the impugned orders passed by District Judge, Jaisalmer, on the applications moved by appellant State under Section 34 of the Act, and against the arbitral awards passed by the sole arbitrator, as such, these appeal have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) FOR convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 728/2010 are taken for deciding these matters, as the issues raised therein are also involved in all other connected appeals. FACTS OF S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.728/2010: Appalled by the order dated 23rd March, 2010, passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 06/2008 by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer (for short, 'learned Court below'). By the order impugned, learned Court below has rejected the application of the appellants under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside arbitral award dated 26th of October, 2007 in toto.
(3.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that, appellants invited tender for manufacture & supply of 20 lacs PCC blocks in size 30 X 15 X 4 cm to Workshop Unit No. 5 & 6 of Saheed Birbal Branch at RD 115. The respondent -firm submitted its tender for the aforesaid work, which was accepted vide order dated 21.10.1991. Thereafter, a work order dated 13.01.1992 was issued in favour of the respondent -firm. In terms of the work order, the work was to be completed within one year to be reckoned w.e.f. 12th December, 1991 with deadline as 11th December, 1992. An agreement was also executed between the rival parties bearing No. 55, stipulating terms and conditions of the contract. It appears that some dispute cropped up between the contracting parties essentially concerning transportation of cement and that caused delay in commencement of project. Besides that, there was some problem in storage of water at site, which also created acrimony between the parties, inasmuch as the appellants insisted that in terms of the agreement construction of diggies for storage of water ought to have been undertaken by the respondent. The non -construction of diggies for storage of water also delayed the project. In that background, for resolving the dispute, the contracting parties while invoking arbitration clause under the agreement decided to refer the matter to arbitrator. By mutual consent, vide order dated 30th May, 2002, Mr. J.M. Kalla, Superintending Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana (IGNP), was appointed as sole arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute.;