An Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of contractual provisions and appreciation of evidence will be upheld by the Court if they are reasonable and supported by the record.

1. The Petition challenges an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal on 23 April 2013, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement dated 17 October 2003 for charter hire of the Deep Water Drilling Rig “Belford Dolphin” along with services on an integrated basis. Under the agreement the Respondent agreed to perform drilling operations in the off-shores in India as may be designated by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was referred to as an Operator, whilst the Respondent was referred to as a Contractor under the agreement. The disputes between the parties arose in respect of the various invoices raised by the Respondent towards the drilling operations and integrated services performed by the Respondent under the agreement for the Petitioner. The invoices raised by the Respondent, in respect of which the dispute arose, were either not paid or not paid in full by the Petitioner. These disputes were referred to an Arbitral Tribunal of three Arbitrators.

2. The claims made by the Respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal broadly fall within 5 categories. Each of these categories and the award in respect thereof is briefly discussed below :-

(A) Extension of Contract and Quantum Meruit :

3. It was the case of the Respondent, under this category of claims, that the Respondent continued drilling operations as instructed by the Petitioner after the expiry of the contract period, for which the Respondent should be paid on the basis of quantum meruit. The Petitioner had paid for the services rendered by the Respondent during this extended period at the contractual rates. It was, however, the case of the Respondent that the services should be paid on the basis of market rates prevailing at the time when these operations were carried out. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the Respondent had raised invoices in respect of this work as per the rates specified in the contract; that these invoices had been duly paid by the Petitioner; and that the claim of the Respondent for additional payment on the basis of quantum meruit was not in order. Accordingly, this claim was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. There is no challenge by the Respondent to this part of the award. This claim accounted for a sum of US$ 15.53 million.

(B) Payment of invoices for equipment lost in hole :

4. This claim related to invoices raised by the Respondent on the Petitioner for payment of the value of the equipment lost in the hole under Clause 16.3 of the contract between the parties. The Clause required the Petitioner to reimburse the Respondent for any loss of or damage to the Respondent's down hole equipment, provided such loss or damage was not occasioned by normal wear and tear or negligence on the part of the Respondent. It was the case of the Respondent that the amounts claimed under these invoices were in respect of equipments lost in hole, which loss was not on account of either wear and tear or negligence on the part of the Respondent. This was disputed by the Petitioner.

5. A total number of 14 invoices were raised by the Respondent in respect of equipment lost in hole. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed the claim in respect of 13 invoices, whilst rejecting the claim in respect of one invoice. The rejection of this invoice is not a subject matter of challenge in the present Arbitration Petition. The challenge pertains to the 13 invoices which have been allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Again, it must be noted at the very outset that out of these invoices, there are 5 invoices which are not expressly made subject matter of challenge in the Petition. It is, however, submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that two of these 5 invoices have been generally challenged by the Petitioner, whilst it is admitted by the Petitioner that three invoices are not challenged at all in the present Arbitration Petition. These three invoices respectively bear Invoice Nos.510-273 dated 23/03/20