Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), inter alia, praying that the Arbitration Award dated 03.07.2015 (hereafter the 'impugned award') made by the Sole Arbitrator in relation to the Contract dated 08.12.2011, be set aside. According to the petitioner, the impugned award suffers from various patent illegalities and is against the public policy of India; consequently, the impugned award is liable to be set aside in terms of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

2. The petitioner and the respondent entered into an Agreement dated 08.12.2011 captioned as "Design Services Agreement" (hereafter 'the Agreement') in terms of which the respondent agreed to prepare design development drawings -as specified in Appendix C to the Agreement based on the schematic design document approved by the petitioner for the project, MGM Grand of Las Vegas, USA Hotel at Asset Area 3, Aerocity, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi.

3. In terms of the Agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum aggregating £250,000 in the manner as specified under the Agreement; £50,000 was to be paid as mobilization and the balance was agreed to be paid progressively in four tranches of £50,000 each. Admittedly, £150,000 was paid to the respondent which included £50,000 as mobilization and two tranches of £50,000 each upto 50% design development phase. The other invoices raised by the respondent were not paid, which included the balance two tranches aggregating £100,000; invoice for an amount of £35,000 for additional work beyond the scope of the Agreement; and £5,059.70 on account of reimbursable expenses. This resulted in the respondent stopping the work and invoking the Arbitration Clause by a notice dated 21.09.2012 claiming a sum of £140,059.70 along with interest.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act before the Supreme Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. The same was allowed and by an order dated 14.03.2014, the Supreme Court appointed Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, Senior Advocate as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in relation to the Agreement.

5. Before the Arbitrator, the respondent filed a Statement of Claims claiming a sum of £140,059.70 on account of the invoices raised; further interest @ 12% p.a from the date of invoices till the date of payment; and costs.

6. The Arbitrator made the impugned award for a sum of £252,280 (approx) in favour of the respondent. This comprised of the following amounts:-

i. £140,059.70 being the aggregate value of the four unpaid invoices.

ii. £15,000 being the Arbitrator’s fees paid by the respondent.

iii. £50,421.50 being interest quantified at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the invoices till the date of the impugned award.

iv. £46,150/-on account of legal costs and expenses.

v. £650 being the amount awarded towards expenses for venue and transcription (equivalent to Rs. 63,443).

In addition, the Arbitrator also awarded that the stamp duty on the impugned award be reimbursed.

7. The present petition was listed for hearing on 13.01.2016. Although, no notice was issued to the respondent, its counsel were present at the said hearing. They raised an objection that the petition was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. The petition was adjourned to 25.02.2016 to enable the counsel for the petitioners to address the issue of limitation but the parties were directed to be ready with their arguments on merits also. At a hearing held on 22.03.2016, this Court rejected the respondent's objection that the petition was beyond the period prescribed as it was apparent from the report of the Registry that the petition had been filed within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the impugned award. The learne