1. This appeal under Section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 25th February 2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘AT’) restraining the Appellant Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (‘MoRTH’) from “taking any coercive steps to prevent in any manner the operation of the project facility by the claimant after 1st March 2015” and further directing the MoRTH to issue “a revised fee notification in terms of the concession agreement before 2nd March 2015” and further directing that such revised fee notification “may be issued for a period of six months within which period the Tribunal reasonably expects that the matter will be finally adjudicated.”

2. In terms of the Concession Agreement ('CA') dated 8th May 2003 executed between the MoRTH and the Respondent DSC Ventures Pvt. Ltd., the Respondent was awarded the contract for implementation of a project involving construction, operation and maintenance of four laning of two lane road from Km. 282 to Km. 308/6 of NH 6 (Raipur-Durg section in the State of Chhattisgarh) on a build, operate and transfer (‘BOT’) basis.

3. In its bid, the Respondent quoted a concession period of 11 years and 9 months including the construction period of up to 3 years. Under Clause 2.2 of the CA, the concession period was defined to be that quoted by the Concessionaire commencing from the Commencement Date during which the Concessionaire is authorised to implement the project to operate the Project Facility in accordance with the provisions thereof.” In the CA, 'Commencement Date' has been defined to mean “the date on which the physical possession of the project site is delivered by the Government of India (GOI) to the Concessionaire, which shall not be later than 30 days from the date of this agreement.” The other relevant definition is ‘the commercial operation date' (‘COD’) which shall be the date on which the Independent Engineer (‘IE’) issues the completion certificate (‘CC’) or the provisional certificate (‘PC’) upon completion of the construction of the project and which shall subject to the provisions of the CA be not later than 180 days after the scheduled project completion date.

4. Under Clause 9.2(a) the project was to be deemed to be completed and open to traffic only when the CC or the PC was issued by the IE in accordance with the article 9.3. Under 9.2 (b), the Respondent guaranteed that the project completion shall be due in accordance with the CA on a date “not later than 36 months from the commencement date.” Under 9.2 (d) if the COD does not occur within 180 days from the scheduled project completion date, GOI shall subject to the provisions of the CA be entitled to terminate the agreement in accordance with the Article 16.2. The events of defaults were specified in Article 16.2. Under Clause 17.2 the concession period could be extended if upon being notified by the Respondent of the change in law and the proposed amendments to the CA, the Steering Group assists the change in the financial position as a result thereof and determine the extension to be given.

5. Schedule B to the CA defines the project site to mean the land width between Km. 282 to Km.308/6 of NH6 is 36.60M and extra land of 4.35M acquired where widening was proposed either to the left side or right of existing carriage-way. Land for the project shall be provided free from all encumbrances and free of costs.

6. According to the NHAI, it handed over the project site to the Respondent on 3rd June 2003 along with all concerned documents. It has enclosed as Annexure A-4 to the appeal, the certificate of hand over and takeover of the project site. However, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the entire project site was handed over, free from all encumbrances, on the aforementioned date. It is the case of the Respondent that entire project site free from all encumbrances was not handed over to it till much later. In para 8.4