(1.) - These appeals have been filed by the State and the Contractor M/s. Chandi and Company against the common order of the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Banswara dated 22.1.2009 deciding the application filed by the State under Sec. 30 and 35 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by which the Arbitration Award dated 12.3.1997 made by the sole Arbitrator Mr. K.C. Jain was made rule of the Court. The said award dated 12.3.1997 was passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of agreements No. 43/88-89 and 45/88-89 executed between the State and the Contractor for Annas Syphon for Anandpuri Canal whereunder the contractor was given the work of excavation of Anandpur Canal from RD 790M to RD 3390M.
(2.) That the State of Rajasthan had earlier also approached this Court by way of SBCMA No. 1124 of 2005, State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s. Chandi and Company and SBCMA No. 1187/2005 which came to be decided by this Court on 25.10.2005 and it was held that the present arbitration dispute would be covered by the provisions of old Arbitration Act, 1940 instead of new enactment of 1996 and the earlier order passed by the learned Dist. Judge dated 23.2.2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the objections of the appellant State on merits. After the said appeals were decided by this Court on 25.10.2005, the learned Arbitrator has decided the said objections of the State by the impugned order dated 22.1.2009 against which both the parties have filed the present appeals.
(3.) The present appeals filed by the State are mainly on the ground that the learned Additional Dist. Judge has erred in rejecting the objections of the State under Sec. 30 and 33 of the Act of 1940, whereas the appeals filed by the Contractor M/s. Chandi and Company are limited to the question as to whether the learned Additional Dist. Judge while making the Arbitration Award a rule of the Court could reduce the rate of interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator from 17.5% to 9%.