C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

The present appeal is directed against judgment, dated 24th January 2017, of the learned Single Judge in OMP 260/2015, which had been preferred by the appellant, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging Award, dated 29th November, 2014, as corrected on 15th December, 2014.

The Facts:

2. In 2004, bids were invited, by the appellant, for development of road connectivity to Paradip Port in Orissa. The respondent bid, and was awarded the contract, by the appellant, vide Letter of Acceptance dated 16th December, 2003, for a sum of Rs 327,76,71,777/-. Pursuant thereto, contract agreement, between the appellant and the respondent, was signed on 29th of January, 2004. Work, under the contract, was to be completed within a period of 36 months from the “start date” of the contract. As per notice of commencement of the work, the date for starting the work was 19th February, 2004, so that the date of completion of the whole work, as originally stipulated, was 18th February, 2007.

3 The work was divided into 3 Milestones, in the following manner:

“Milestone 1: Complete minimum length of 25 Km (anywhere in the entire stretch) in all respects of new Carriageway between 18 months and the Start date excluding major bridges falling in between – i.e. on 18.08.2005.

Milestone 2: Complete length of 25 Km of old carriageway in all respects of Milestone No 1 and additional 20 Km length of new carriageway in all respects so that total completed stretch would be 45 km of new carriageway and 25 km of old carriageway between 28 months from the Start Date. This also excludes major bridges i.e. on 18.08.2005.

Milestone : 3. Remaining length including all Bridges (complete work) shall be completed by the end of the Contract period i.e. 36 months from the Start Date i.e. on 18.08.2005.”

4. The dispute, which came to be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, in the present case, related to payment, claimed by the respondent, for additional cost stated to have been incurred, and loss suffered, by it, owing to extension of the period for completion of the contract from 19th February 2007 to 15th June 2009 which, according to the respondent, was due to “compensation events” not attributable to it.

5. According to the respondent, the said “compensation events” rendered it impossible for the respondent to complete the work within the stipulated period of 36 months. The respondent, accordingly, applied, from time to time, for Extension of Time (“EOT”), also claiming the costs incurred by it on account of such extension. Extension of time, as sought by the respondent, was granted by the Engineer of the appellant, periodically, till 27th August 2009, under Clause 28 of the Conditions of Contract. EOT was, however, approved, by the appellant, only till 15th June 2009. Possession of land, in respect of the Chandhikhol intersection could not be handed over, by the appellant to the respondent, by the said date. Barring the work relating to the said intersection, the remaining work was admittedly completed, by the respondent, by 15th June 2009, and Substantial Completion Certificate was also issued, to the respondent, by the Engineer. The respondent was allowed to complete the remaining work, i.e. pertaining to the Chandikhol Intersection, during the Defect Liability Period which, too, was admittedly performed by the respondent. As such, there was no dispute about the fact that the entire work, under the contract, was performed, by the respondent, before the expiry of the Defect Liability Period.

6. The time schedule relevant for the present case stands well-delineated in para 9.2 of the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, and may be reproduced, verbatim, thus: