JUDGMENT

B P Colabawalla, J. - By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), the petitioner challenges the Interim Award dated 25th April, 2017, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal to the extent it awards and determines:

(i) that the Concession Agreement dated 25th August, 2006 was validly terminated, both on account of Political Force Majeure Events and material default on the part of the Petitioner thereby holding / finding that the issue of liability against the Petitioner is finally determined;

(ii) that the hearing stands bifurcated and all quantum related issues deferred to a second phase to decide the quantum of the Respondent's claims;

(iii) the issues that would arise in the second stage of the arbitration as set out in paragraph 83 of the Impugned Award;

(iv) that there was no conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;

(v) that the second phase may involve a brief set of pleadings whereby the Respondent may make fresh quantum claims, and the Petitioner may file its response to the quantum, claims, and documents may be relied upon by parties;

(vi) that the need for any oral or expert evidence would be determined by the Tribunal in the second phase; and

(vii) that its decision on the Counter Claim is deferred.

2. A further direction is sought to set aside the impugned Award insofar as it rejects the petitioner's case and contentions.

3. The basic grounds of challenge to the impugned Interim Award are as under:

I Reliance placed by the Arbitral Tribunal on evidence which was inadmissible in law;

II Upholding the validity of the termination of the Concession Agreement dated 25th August, 2006;

III(A) The Award is contrary to the procedure agreed upon between the parties as provided by section 19(2) of the Act;

III(B) Legal misconduct on the part of the Tribunal; and

III(C) Failure of the Tribunal to consider and decide the Counter Claim filed by the petitioner.

4. Before I examine these grounds of challenge, it would be necessary to encapsulate the brief facts of the matter. The present dispute arises out of a Concession Agreement dated 25th August, 2006 (for short "the Concession Agreement") which was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for the purpose of four-laning, improvement and maintenance of the Bhiwandi-Kalyan Shil-Phata Highway (for short "the Project Highway" and/or the "Project Road"). The Project Highway is a road in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region which provides an East-West Link and connects NH3 to NH4. This Project Highway bears a heavy load of commercial traffic as well as caters to passenger vehicles commuting between Kalyan-Bhiwandi and Dombivali. The road measures 21.6 kilometers in length of which four kilometers was a four lane Highway from before and the rest of the road was of poor quality and a two-lane undivided carriageway. Additionally, over fifty percent of the road length had stretches with poor driving conditions and was in need of immediate attention for road strengthening etc. The Project comprised of strengthening the existing four lane dual carriageway and widening the existing two-lane carriageway to a four lane dual carriagewa