Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘the Act’) directed against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2010, whereby the Learned Single Judge dismissed the objections to the arbitral award dated 07.05.1996 (preferred vide I.A. No. 4860/2004 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act) and made the same a “rule” of the court.

2. A contract was entered between the Appellant/objector, National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) as the owner of the project, and (i) SNC/ACRES – a joint venture of SNC Inc. and Acres International Ltd.; (ii) MIL Group Inc. (MIL), and; (iii) the Canadian General Electric Company Ltd. (GE) – incorporated under the laws of Canada, as the supplier of equipment and services on 03.08.1984. The project in question was the Chamera Hydroelectric project on Raavi River in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The contract involved the construction of a dam, an underground power house complex containing three hydro turbine generator units, tunnels, switchyards and a transmission line. SNC/ACRES – the two component companies are each engaged in the business of professional engineering. GE is engaged, inter alia, in the business of designing, manufacturing and installing electrical equipment. MIL is engaged in the business, inter alia, of designing, manufacturing and installing hydroelectric equipment. In regard to the project, SNC/ACRES provided engineering and project management services. GE and MIL were responsible for manufacture and supply of turbines, generators, gates and other equipment for the Turbine Generator Units, each providing different parts of that equipment.

3. Disputes arose between NHPC on the one hand, and GE and MIL on the other hand with respect to price variation claims made by GE and MIL against the NHPC in respect of the equipment and tools supplied, as also the consultancy services provided by them. Under the contract, the respondents, GE and MIL were entitled to claim price variation – both during the contractual period, and for the period after the contract delivery period. In terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the contract, these disputes were referred to arbitration. SNC/ACRES were not concerned with these disputes and were, therefore, not parties to the Arbitration. Issues pertaining to the existence of Force Majeure conditions; the interpretation of the price variation clause; and, limitation were raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitrators accepted the price variation claims of the respondents GE and MIL and also awarded interest to them. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant’s objections – also raising the same issues before the Court. Submissions of the Appellant:

4. Mr. Datta, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant has primarily made two submissions.

5. At the outset, Mr. Datta submits that so far as the entitlement to claim price variation for the contractual period is concerned, the same is not under dispute, and what is disputed is the manner of calculation of the same. This aspect – i.e. with regard to the formula to be applied for computation of price variation, shall be examined a little later. The submission of Mr. Datta is that the claims of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for price variation for the period after the contract delivery period were founded on the alleged existence of Force Majeure conditions from 1988-1990. To claim price variation for the period after the contract delivery period, it was essential for the respondent GE and MIL to show that the delay was on account of existence of Force Majure conditions. The existence of such conditions is given as the reason for the delay in supply of the equipment. Respondent nos.1 and 2 claim that the prices of the equipment and services have suffered upward revision during the said period, and they claimed the same. Mr. Datta submits that since the appellant had disputed the