INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 17.03.2008 passed by District Judge, Dholpur in application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (to be referred as Act of 1996).
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the State of Rajasthan (to be referred as Department) allotted the work of restoration of existing damaged CD Works of Dholpur-Soneka Gurja Road Via Van Vihar vide Agreement No.29/1990-91 to M/s. Murari Lal Singhal (to be referred as contractor). Department vide order dated 12.11.1990 directed the contractor to start the work amounting to Rs. 11,80,922/-, the schedule date to start the work was 06.12.1990 and completion date was 05.06.1991. The contractor started the work however the work could not be completed and the prescribed time therefore the claimant requested for extension of time and the time was extended by the Department. When the department failed to pay the running bills submitted by the contractor then the contractor filed an application for appointment of an arbitrator to the department and the department vide order dated 20.05.2004 appointed Shri N.P. Mathur Retd., Chief Engineer P.W.D. as sole arbitrator. That after appointment of arbitrator, the claimant filed its statement of claim before the Learned Arbitrator and total five claims were submitted by the contractor amounting to Rs. 6,84,584/-. The contractor also requested for awarding 18% interest per annum. The department submitted reply to the claim and denied the averments. The Learned Arbitrator framed following issues:- "1. Whether the claimant was prevented from the execution of work due to hindrances and non fulfilment of contractual obligation by the department as alleged in the statement of Facts and Claims which party is responsible for prolongation of contract or not? 2. Which party to the contract Claimant/Respondent is responsible for substantial or part breach of contract? 3. Whether the contract has been finalised and determined by payment of final bill under acceptance of Claimant to close it by the Respondent or not?, if so, what are the reasons and consequences thereof on both the parties? 4. Is the Claimant in view of issues No.1 to 3 above entitled for payment of final bill for Rs. 1,56,481/- within the prescribed period up to 6.1.93 or not? 5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent a sum of Rs. 56,481/- or any other sum towards refund of security amount from 6.1.93? 6. Whether the recovery by Respondent against Claimant for total cost of material supplied is due or not?, if so its amount with detail if what is the burden on the Respondent and Claimant? 7. Whether the delay in completion of work by the Claimant due to alleged delay on the part of Department entitled the Claimant for grant of payment of price escalation amounting to Rs. 1,25,002/- or not?' if under what reasons and justification? 8. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive from the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,36,184/- including interest or any other sum towards extra overhead charges and loss of profit due to prolongation of work beyond stipulated date of prolongation of work beyond stipulated date of completion in view of issue No.1 to 3 above or not? 9. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of claims as referred in various claims above submitted by Claimant from 6.1.93 to actual date of payment? 10. Any other relief demanded by each party during arbitration proceedings."
(3.) The Learned Arbitrator after considering the evidence submitted by both the parties allowed the claim for a sum of Rs. 3,55,349/- in favour of the contractor alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.;