MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for setting-aside a portion of the impugned award dated 26th May, 2011 to the extent that it does not grant the petitioner reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Statement of Claim.

2. The petitioner is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of supplying, erecting and commissioning industrial plants. The respondent through its Controller of Stores invited tenders vide Tender No.G-180 for procurement of a Minerallic Abrasive (Sand) Blasting Plant for Stainless Steel Passenger Coach/Car Shells. On 17th April, 2000, the respondent issued an amendment being Amendment No.1 to the above said Tender No.G-180. On 27th June, 2000, the respondent issued a second corrigendum to the said Tender vide which Clause No.3.4.1.4 was amended. By a letter dated 12th July, 2000, the Assistant Commissioner of Stores certified that the external blasting of the coach would be mechanized as per corrigendum No.2 dated 27th June, 2000 that the internal blasting and the blasting of the underside of the coach would be carried out by manual blasting. On 3rd November, 2000, by an amendment further modifications/ clarifications in the said tender were issued by the respondent. The said amendment made it a requirement that the blasting process in the proposed plant should be such that the said surface area of 560 sq.mts. should be fully blasted in 6 hours or less.

3. On 4th December, 2000, the petitioner submitted its offer/bid bearing No.TAL/MKTG/MDP/SAL/05/COV/2002. The said offer was made pursuant to the modification/clarification in the above said tender by way of the aforesaid amendment dated 3rd November, 2000. On 23rd May, 2003, this offer was accepted by the respondent vide its Purchase Order No.COFMOW/IR/S3417/2K/G180. On receipt of the said Purchase Order, the petitioner supplied the necessary machinery and commissioned the plant in accordance with the specifications provided in the tender documents and the amendments, clarifications and modifications thereto.

4. The petitioner further submitted that on 2nd April, 2005, the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (M&P), RCF, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as the “RCF”) issued a Proving Test Certificate (in short, called as “PTC”) certifying the receipt, successful installation and commissioning of the Minerallic Abrasive (Sand) Blasting Plant and the technical acceptability and functioning thereof. The said PTC also certified that the training of RCF personnel had been completed by the petitioner.

5. After the joint trials conducted in the month of October, 2006 it was first contended by the respondent and RCF that the productivity of the Plant was lower than that specified in the Accepted Tender (in short, called as “AT”). A tripartite meeting was held between the petitioner, the respondent and RCF on 4th January, 2007. The said issue of productivity of the Plant being lower than that specified in the AT was raised by the respondent and RCF. At the said meeting, the respondent and RCF alleged that the amount of time taken for blasting one LHB Chair Car was more than 18 hours and 15 minutes as compared to the maximum of 8 hours provided in the AT. The minutes of the tripartite meeting of 1st February, 2007 accordingly record as follows, “The solution therefore lies in correctly calculating the clear area and shaded area of LHB Chair Car. Once the area is agreed to clearly by M/s. TAL & RCF, element of productivity clause in AT and then joint measurement of timing would be recorded on the coach.”

6. On 23rd February, 2007, the joint measurement and calculation of surface area of the coaches was undertaken by the petitioner and RCF. In the said measurement, the approx. surface area of the LHB Chair Car coach which was actually supplied was calculated to be about 840 sq.mts. On 5th March, 2007, the petitioner by