[2025:RJ-JP:41725-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.970/2022 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur 2. Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Ajmer 3. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bisalpur, Project Division III, Ajmer ----Appellants-objectors Versus M/s Ganesh Shankar Pandey And Company, Dharmashala Bajar, Gorakhpur, (U.P.) ----Respondent-Company For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG & Mr. Aaditya Godara, AAAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 13/10/2025 1. This is an appeal preferred against the order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Ajmer whereby, it rejected the objections raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) against the award dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Arbitrator and the amended award dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Arbitrator. 2. Brief facts which came to be noticed are that the Additional Chief Engineer PHED, Region Ajmer issued a NIT 1/94-95 on 25.11.1994 thereafter, vide corrigendum dated 28.12.1994 certain other corrections were made in the NIT for construction of 25 ML capacity Clear Water Reservoir (CWR) at SR-7 near Makhopura, Ajmer. The same was under the Bisalpur Project. Upon being L-1, [2025:RJ-JP:41725-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-970/2022] the respondent company was awarded the contract and agreement was executed between the appellants and the respondent on 27.10.1995 and work order was issued. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent company failed to undertake the work as per conditions in the work order on account of slow work speed. They were asked to improve their performance at work however, the respondent company was not interested to complete the work. Whereafter, notice was served upon them in terms of the provisions of the agreement as to why the remaining work should not be done by another firm. The company did not complete the work inspite of several letters being sent to them. 4. It is a case of the appellants before us that respondent Company left the work in between and the appellants had to get the remaining work completed through another firm and therefore the company was asked to deposit the determining amount of Rs.37,09,134/-. 5. Learned counsel submits that the company did not resort to Clause 23 of the Agreement and moved application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. 6. The Court allowed the application and appointed one Mr. K.M.L. Mathur, Retired Chief Engineer as Arbitrator to settle the dispute. The appellants preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator dated 29.08.2008. The same was ultimately dismissed observing that the appellants would be at liberty to raise all contentions before the concerned Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator after hearing the parties passed an award in favor of the [2025:RJ-JP:41725-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-970/2022] respondent Company holding the respondent entitled to recover the amount from the appellants which they had recovered earlier. Remaining recovery was also waived off. 7. That apart, the claimant was held entitled to cost also as stated in the award. Objections were raised by the appellants stating that the Arbitrator had not considered their submissions in the correct perspective and since the contractor had himself left the work there was no occasion to award compensation to him. The learned Commercial Court found that the Arbitrator had taken into consideration all the factual aspects raised before it and after considering the contentions raised by the appellants, had reached to the conclusion as noticed in its award. The Court also reached to the conclusion that it would not have been authority to change the factual aspects or opinions which have been arrived at. The learned Arbitrator had rightly reached to the conclusion with regard to the pace on which the work could have been done, it was also stated that the factual aspects ought not be interfered with in appeal while hearing objection under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The level and manner in which a particular evidence has been dealt with by the Arbitrator, can only be interfered, if it is found to be per se perverse. Since, no such perversity was found in the findings arrived at by the Arbitrator, the learned Commercial Court rejected the contentions. 8. Before us, the same contentions which were raised before the learned Commercial Court have been raised as a second round of testing the same issue. 9. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge as well as the observations of the Arbitrator. It is a clear case where the [2025:RJ-JP:41725-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-970/2022] appellants had created a situation where respondent could not perform the contract. It is also not a case where he has himself abandoned the work. The subsequent work allotted to another firm, would not make a difference so far as claim of the respondent before the learned Single Judge is concerned. The same applies to the Appellate Court too. 10. We, therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Commercial Court. 11. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 12. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DANISH USMANI /01