Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for setting aside the award dated 24.05.2013.

2. It must be stated at the very outset that there are several legal submissions raised in the petition, which admittedly had no foundation in the pleadings filed before the learned sole arbitrator. As a matter of fact, even at the stage of arguments, the legal submissions on the basis of which the award is sought to be assailed, were not advanced before the learned arbitrator. These legal submissions, to which I would be making a reference hereinafter, were raised for the first time in written submissions on behalf of the petitioner after oral argument had concluded before the learned arbitrator and that too by a new set of advocates. Broadly, these legal submissions pertain to the non-consideration of the provisions of Sections, 10, 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short the S.R. Act). It is the case of the petitioner that the relief accorded by the learned arbitrator to the respondent, could not have been granted if, the said provisions of the S.R. Act, had been kept in mind.

3. In order to appreciate the various contentions raised before me by counsels for parties, the broad facts which led to passing of the award and its challenge in this court, require to be noticed.

4. The petitioner, entered into a contract with a company by the name of Ispat Energy Ltd. (in short IEL) to set up on EPC basis 2 x 55 MW BF Gas Fired Power Plant Project at Dolvi, Geetapuram, Distt. Raigarh in the state of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the Project).

4.1 For this purpose, a letter of intent (LOI) dated 20.07.2007, was issued by IEL in favour of the petitioner. This was followed by three (3) agreements of even date, i.e., 24.07.2007, executed between the petitioner and IEL.

4.2 The setting up of the project required installation of two (2) Generator Transformers (in short GTs). The petitioner, for this purpose, entered into a contract with the respondent. This contract is the subject matter of the LOI dated 30.08.2007. It is pertinent to note at this stage that it is the case of the petitioner, that the LOI dated 30.08.2007, was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent at the say so of IEL.

4.3 As per the terms of the LOI dated 30.08.2007, the respondent was to provide inspection and / or despatch the first GT within ten (10) months of the LOI, while the second GT had to be made ready for inspection/ despatch within eleven (11) months of the LOI. The total consideration for supply of the two GTs was fixed at Rs. 8.60 crores with an additional cost to be paid for supervision of erection and commissioning.

4.4 The respondent furnished a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 86 lacs in favour of the petitioner in lieu of advance it was to receive for the manufacture, supply and commissioning of the two (2) GTs. The petitioner released the advance in two tranches of Rs. 43 lacs each. The first tranche was released of 27.09.2007, while the second tranche was released on 09.05.2008.

4.5 The petitioner, evidently, also entered into a second contract dated 14.07.2008 with the respondent involving manufacture and supply of an equipment, known as, Switchyard. It is the case of the petitioner that the GTs by themselves are useless without the switchyard. The petitioner claims that this contract was also executed with the respondent at the say so of the IEL, after terminating the contract previously entered into with an entity known as M/s. Voltech.

4.6 According to the petitioner, since the execution of its contract with IEL was being delayed due to reasons solely attributable to the latter, it had requested the respondent to delay the delivery of the two (2) GTs. It is the petitioner’s case that despite such an intimation the respondent issued an inspection notice dated 26.12.2008, calling upon its officers to inspect the GTs manufactured b