ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2019, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in terms whereof an appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’), was allowed and the cross appeal filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. 3. The arbitration dispute emanated out of the Concession Agreement dated 08.07.2005, entered into between the appellant and the State of Rajasthan for improvement of Kaman-Nand Gaon-Kosi Road, Kaman Byepass, and Kaman Pahari Road, as well as for widening of Kelwa-Amet Road. The aforesaid work was to be executed on Building, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) basis. There arose multiple disputes between the parties, including delay in execution of the project. The appellant later on invoked the Additional Clause of the Concessionaire Agreement on the premise that due to ban imposed by the State Authorities on mining in the area, the collection of toll was marginal, and hence, the project had become un-viable. The appellant eventually moved an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, pursuant to which a former Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, who passed an Award on 15.01.2015, awarding a sum of Rs.43.685 crores with interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a. from 16.10.2013 till the date of the payment to the appellant as payable under the Additional Clause. Thereafter, some applications for correction of computation of arrears were moved by both sides. The Arbitrator accepted the appellant’s application on 09.03.2015 and the awarded amount was enhanced to Rs. 43.7281 crores. 4. The State of Rajasthan as well as the appellant challenged the Award before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Act, but both Section 34 petitions were dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan (Commercial Court) on 12.05.2017. 5. This led the State and the appellant to file their respective appeals under Section 37 of the Act and, as noticed earlier, the Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, has allowed the State’s appeal, and the cross appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 6. 5. This led the State and the appellant to file their respective appeals under Section 37 of the Act and, as noticed earlier, the Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, has allowed the State’s appeal, and the cross appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 6. During the course of hearing, it seems to us that the appeals preferred by the parties require a fresh consideration by the High Court, keeping in view the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction exercisable under Section 37 of the Act. 7. We may hasten to add that the reason for remanding the appeal to the High Court is that there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, and in the event of an aggrieved party coming to this Court again, we would have the advantage of the view-point of the High Court on such questions. It is, thus, clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective contentions before the High Court, and the same shall be gone into as per their own merits. 8. For the reasons stated above, the instant appeal is allowed in part, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 22.08.2019 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the appeals, filed by the respondent-State and the appellant, afresh and in accordance with law. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 22.01.2025. 10. Since the dispute between the parties arose way back in the years 2009-2010, we request the High Court to decide the subject appeal at the earliest, and preferably within six months.