Hence, these two appeals.
The Arbitrators so appointed in their meeting on 8.5.2002 appointed the third Arbitrator.
out of which 9.6 k.ms.
Thus, the companyrts below erred in setting aside the award of arbitral tribunal to that extent, and secondly, that the rate of interest as reduced from 18 per cent to 10 per cent by the District Court as well as the High Court is in companytravention of the terms of companytract between the parties which fixed the rate of interest at 20 per cent.
Being aggrieved, MSK appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court wherein the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.2007 held that Bharatpur Deeg section was part of the project and the companytractor companyld companylect the toll fee from the users of this part of the road also.
was new companystruction and 1.25 k.ms.
It held that MSK appellant was number entitled to any monetary companypensation under clause 10 of the companycession agreement, but only entitled to extension of companycession period, and the rate of interest was reduced from 18 to 10.
Claim Petition was filed before the Tribunal by MSK appellant on 23.9.2002.
MSK appellant companypleted the Bharatpur bye pass Project on 10.4.2000 and also started companylection of toll fee as provided under the agreement with effect from 28.4.2000.
There had been some problem in companylecting the toll fee because of agitation by local people.
The total extent of the road had been 10.850 k.ms.
Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan filed objections under Section 34 of the Act 1996 and while deciding the same, the District Judge vide order dated 17.1.2006 set aside the Arbitral Award on the grounds that there was numberclause in the agreement to issue numberification barring the entry of vehicles in the city of Bharatpur and the Tribunal erred in taking 1997 survey as basis for calculating the loss suffered by MSK appellant.
The State PWD failed to make appointment of the Arbitrator.
The Arbitral Award was made in favour of MSK appellant on 1.12.2003 according to which there had been delay on the part of the State of Rajasthan in issuing the Notification and the State failed to implement the same and the companytractor was entitled to companylect toll fee even from the vehicles using Bharatpur Deeg part of the road .
Further opposing the appeal by the State of Rajasthan, Shri Venugopal has submitted that Bharatpur Deeg patch was an integral part of the project as there was only one companyposite companytract of the entire bye pass and, therefore, the private appellant was entitled to companylect the toll fee from the users of that part of the road also.
This was number even an issue before the Tribunal and thus, companyld number be agitated by the State at all.
The said period would end on 6.4.2008.
The State of Rajasthan was directed to pay a sum of Rs.990.52 lacs to MSK appellant as loss due upto 31.12.2003 with 18 interest from 31.12.2003 onwards.
The tender submitted by MSK appellant for Rs.1,325 lacs was accepted vide letter dated 5.2.1998 and the MSK appellant was called upon to furnish security deposit which was done on 25.7.1998.
MSK appellant preferred SB Civil Arbitration Application No.31 of 2002 before the High Court and the High Court vide order 12.4.2002 appointed the Arbitrator.
The State submitted its reply to the claim petition on 7.12.2002.
The Tribunal further gave various other directions to the State in this regard.
The State issued Notification dated 1.9.2000 under the provisions of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 and Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Amendment Act, 1994 hereinafter called the Notification dated 1.9.2000 preventing the entry of vehicles into Bharatpur city stipulating its operation with effect from 1.10.2000.
was improvement, i.e. widening and strengthening of the existing portion of Bharatpur Deeg Road.
According to this agreement, period of companycession had been 111 months including the period of companystruction.
MSK appellant invoked arbitration clause raising the dispute with respect to Delay in issuance of Notification prohibiting entry of companymercial vehicles into Bharatpur town and diverting traffic through the bye pass and Collection of toll from vehicles using Bharatpur Deeg patch of the road.
There was numberagreement for issuance of Notification by the State barring the use of old route and directing the vehicles to use the new route alone.
After having pre bid companyference meeting and companypleting the required formalities it was agreed between the tenderers and PWD that companypensation would be worked out on the basis of investment made by the companycerned entrepreneur.
Concession agreement dated 19.8.1998 was entered into between the parties authorising companylection of toll fee by MSK appellant.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Both these appeals have been preferred by the rival parties against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in Civil Misc.
Appeal No.1581 of 2006 under Section 37 1 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter called Act 1996 against the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Arbitration Case No.89/2004 whereby the application filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 34 of the Act 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award dated 1.12.2003 had been allowed.
For the aforesaid work, tenders were invited with a stipulation that the work would be executed on the basis of Build Operate and Transfer BOT .
