By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Arbitration Act') the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 25th April, 2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

2. The petitioner was the original respondent to statement of claim and was the claimant to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and was the respondent to the counter claim.

3. On or about 21st March, 1996, the petitioner invited tenders for reclamation behind service berth in the quadrangle between the container berth approach and service berth approach. The petitioner issued amendment to the tender documents on 3rd April, 1996 which was to be treated as part of the said contract. Some of the terms and conditions of the original contract were modified and incorporated as a part of the contract. On 11th April, 1996 the respondent submitted its bid. On 27th May, 1996 the respondent was awarded the contract by the petitioner. The date of commencement of work was 1st June, 1996 and the stipulated date of completion was 28th February, 1997.

4. On 18th May, 1996 the respondent by its letter confirmed that it would provide the stone material as per provisions of tender and it would be entitled to payment for the work done between initial bed level and final level of work done. The respondent also informed the petitioner that the respondent had appointed Dr. R.K. Katti as its consultant.

5. On 27th February, 1997, the respondent was issued work completion certificate by the petitioner with a snag list. It would be the case of the petitioner that there were several incomplete items which the respondent had to comply with after issuing the said work completion certificate which the respondent failed and neglected to comply with by complying incomplete items as mentioned in the said slag list.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the work, the respondent submitted its 5th, 6th and 7th running account bill to the petitioner. By letter date 29th January, 1998 the petitioner asked the respondent to submit its final bill but the respondent failed and neglected to submit the final bill.

7. On 2nd February, 1998 the respondent made various claims before the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. By letter dated 23rd February, 1998, the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner refused to entertain the claims of the respondent. On 5th March, 1998 the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Manager (PPD) of the petitioner against the decision of the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner.

8. On 8th April, 1999 the respondent quantified its claim and called upon the petitioner to settle the same making it clear that in case of failure to settle the claim, it would be considered that the disputes and differences had arisen and the respondent would proceed as per the provisions of contract. In the said claim, the respondent claimed the amount of Rs.3,64,51,616.60. On 28th April, 1999, the respondent recorded the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to pay its dues and therefore invoked the provisions of clause 65 of the contract and called upon the petitioner to appoint arbitrator.

9. The Manager (PPD) of the petitioner by its letter dated 20th October, 1999 to the respondent recorded that no proposal was submitted by the respondent for settling the disputes and the final bill was proceeded as per the contract provisions and retention money would be released after submission of documents as mentioned and amount of Rs. 8 lacs was withheld. The respondent by its letter dated 12th December, 1999 placed on record that it had no claims other than the list of dues submitted by its letter dated 8th April, 1999.

10. On 20th April, 2000 Mr. R.K. Bhansali was appointed as a sole