NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator inter-alia holding therein that the termination of the Agreement dated 14.02.2011 by the respondent was invalid and consequentially granting the claims of the respondent for refund of the mobilization advance as also awarding damages for such unlawful termination in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The amount payable under the award was directed to be paid along with interest @ 12% p.a.

2. The dispute between the parties is in relation to the “Professional Service Agreement for the appointment of a Project Manager and Cost Consultant” dated 14.02.2011 executed between the parties. The dispute is confined only to Clause 9 of the agreement and interpretation thereof and therefore, Clause 9 is reproduced herein below:

9. TERMINATION

I. The Owner may terminate the Agreement with a prior notice of 30 days.

II. The Project Management Consultant may terminate this agreement only in case the Owner fails to pay its correctly invoiced fees within 30 days of receipt of a reminder by courier letter informing Owner of due amounts.

III. Upon the termination or expiry of this Agreement, the Project Management Consultant shall return to the Owner any and all data, technical details, designs, drawings and the like and shall not retain any copies and/or extract thereof.

IV. Either party may upon Thirty (30) days notice in writing to the other terminate this Agreement.

V. In the event of termination of the Agreement, the Owner shall pay to the PMC the fee corresponding to the Services which were completed up to the date of contract termination.”

3. The petitioner relying upon Clause 9(IV) of the agreement, issued a notice of termination dated 23.12.2011.

4. The respondent contending that the termination was invalid, raised its claim for damages and refund of the mobilization advance, which was referred to arbitration and has resulted in the Impugned Award dated 06.07.2015.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 9(IV) of the agreement required no interpretation. It plainly and simply allowed either party to terminate the agreement by giving a notice of 30 days in writing to the other party. Such termination can be without cause and is to be distinguished from Clause 9(II) of the agreement which provides for termination by the Project Management Consultant (PMC) for a cause i.e. on the owner’s failure to pay correctly the invoiced fee within 30 days of the receipt of the reminder from PMC. He submits that in the agreement there are two modes of termination provided; (i) with; and (ii) without cause. Equal right is given to both the parties to terminate the agreement without assigning any cause under Clause 9(IV) of the agreement. He submits that in the name of interpretation, the Arbitrator has in fact re-written the agreement between the parties and has made Clause 9(IV) otiose and redundant.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submits that the Arbitrator having interpreted the contract, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act, cannot set aside the Award only because it would have preferred another interpretation of the same.

7. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties. I would first quote the relevant discussion on the two Clauses in the Impugned Award:

Analysis & conclusion:

5.5 Perusal of the said clauses would reveal that Clause 9(1) of the agreement provides a right to the “owner” alone to terminate the agreement with 30 days prior notice; clause 9(II) provides a limited right to the respondent to terminate the agreement only when owner fails to pay the fee correctly within 30 days of the receipt of the written reminder for payment. But, it is not the respondent's case. Howeve