STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. ALTERNATIVE FOR INDIA DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal preferred by the State under Sec. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is directed against the judgment dtd. 25/6/2018 passed in Commercial (REVOC) Case No. 05 of 2017 by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the said case filed on behalf of the present appellant under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the part of the arbitral award dtd. 2/6/2017 and additional award dtd. 7/7/2017 passed in Arbitration Case No. 01 of 2016 by learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the claimant awarded with revenue support for the total number of 594 Common Services Centres @ Rs.3284.00 per Common Service Centres per month calculated from 26/11/2012 to 25/6/2016 totaling to Rs.7,91,61,051.00 plus interest upon the same as per the prime lending rate of State Bank of India for the applicable period to be calculated from November, 2012 till actual payment to the claimant, as well as the part of the impugned arbitral award dtd. 2/6/2017, whereby against the counter claim of Rs.13,40,63,107.00only Rs.9,47,706.00 with lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 only awarded to the opposite party (appellant) as well as against the order dtd. 11/8/2017 passed in the Arbitration Case No. 01 of 2016 by the learned Sole Arbitrator rejecting the application under Sec. 33 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed on behalf of the opposite party (present appellant) has been dismissed by the learned Commercial Court, Ranchi by the judgment dtd. 25/6/2018 passed in Commercial (REVOC) Case No. 05 of 2017.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :-

(3.) Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant State, has submitted that the work in question, i.e., 600 Common Service Centres was ought to be completed and had to be made operative and to that effect a certificate was required to be given by the authority concerned and it is only thereafter the revenue support was to be given to the claimant, as would appear from the condition stipulated under Condition No.3.1(f) of the Master Service Agreement.