GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The present appeal, filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (‘MTNL’ hereafter), challenges the order dated 11th April, 2017 passed by the ld. Single Judge on the original side of this court accepting objections filed by the Finolex Cables Limited (‘FCL’ hereafter) against the arbitral award dated 18th August, 2009 passed by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between FCL and MTNL.

To the extent necessary, we first note the facts giving rise to the present appeal.

2. MTNL had entered into a contract dated 11th July, 1990 with FCL for supply of following four sizes of Jelly Filled Cables (JFCs) :

S. No.	Items	Unit Price	Total Price
1.	20/6 Armoured U/s Jelly Filled Cable	65,102.00	9,76,530.00
2.	50/6 Armoured U/s Jelly Filled Cable	1,08,8520.50	10,88,525.00
3.	400/6 Armoured U/s Jelly Filled Cable	5,84,820.00	23,29,280.00
4.	2400/4 Armoured U/s Jelly Filled Cable	12,93,946.72	3,23,48,668.00

3. Pursuant to the said contract, a purchase order dated 20th December, 1990 was placed upon FCL. The date of delivery of the aforesaid goods was 20th May, 1991. The entire quantity was to be supplied to the Delhi/Bombay unit with the consignee being specified as “MTNL Delhi/Bombay”.

4. There is no difficulty with regard to the supply of three sizes of cables which were duly supplied in accordance with the delivery schedule. However, the fourth size was a unique type of cable requiring approval of the Telecom Engineering Centre (‘TEC’ hereafter), which admittedly could not be supplied by FCL by the specified date. There also appears to have been an error in the description of the said cable, which had to be amended subsequently.

5. In terms of the contract, FCL had furnished performance bank guarantee dated 5th December, 1990 in the sum of Rs.18,37,650/-

6. Clause 9.2 of the purchase order/Contract stated that the MTNL reserved the rights to cancel the balance quantity of the order if the supply was not made within the delivery period or extended delivery period (i.e., by 20th May, 1991). Clause 10.3 stipulated that delivery of the cable would be supplied strictly as per specifications supplied by the TEC/CGM(QA), Bangalore.

7. In clause 14.3, reasonable quantities were to be offered for inspection to DET (QA) and the invoices raised by the supplier were to be accompanied by certificates of inspection stating that the stores conformed to the specifications offered and were accepted.

8. We extract hereunder clause 17 which provided for liquidity damages and reads as follows:

"17. Liquidated Damages

17.1 The date of delivery of the stores stipulated in the acceptance of Purchase Order should be deemed to be the essence of the contract and delivery must be completed not later than the dates specified therein. Extension will not be given except in exceptional circumstances. Should, however, deliveries be made after expiry of the contract and be accepted by the Consignee, such deliveries will not deprive the Purchaser of his right to recover liquidated damages under Clause 17.2 below, where, however, supplies are made within 21 (twenty one) days of the contracted original delivery period, the consignee may accept the stores and in such cases the provisions of clause 17.2 will not apply.

Should the tenderer fail to deliver the stores or any consignment thereof within the period prescribed for delivery, the Chairman Cum Managing Director, MTNL, shall be entitled to recover ½% of the undelivered stores value of the Order placed; for each week of delay or part thereof, subject to a maximum of 10% of the value of the Order placed.”

9. It appears that FCL submitted a sample to the TEC on 18th May, 1991, i.e., two days before the expiry of the dead l