VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, impugning the arbitral award dated 29.07.2015 (hereafter 'the impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a sole arbitrator, namely, Sh. Ramesh Chandra Jindal (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal'). The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the contract for execution of the work of Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) for LPG import/export terminal at Ennore, Tamil Nadu.

2. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected all the claims of the petitioner and counter claims of the respondent (hereafter 'IPPL'). Apparently, the Arbitral Tribunal accepted that a sum of Rs. 52,43,500/- recovered by IPPL by invoking the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, was due to the petitioner; but, it did not direct the refund of the said amount, as it accepted that an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- was due to IPPL for completing the work through an alternate agency, namely, M/s Firecon. Even though, IPPL had not made any counter claim for the said sum, the Arbitral Tribunal adjusted the amount of Rs. 52,43,500/- from the sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,500/- alongwith future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award – that is, 29.07.2015 – till its realization, in favour of IPPL.

3. The principal controversy involved in the present petition is whether the Arbitral Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims (not being Notified Claims) preferred by the petitioner and if so whether, the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claims made by the petitioner, are sustainable.

Factual Context

4. On 26.12.2005, IPPL issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) for implementation of LPG import terminal at Ennore, Tamil Nadu (hereafter 'the Project').

5. The petitioner submitted its bids pursuant to the aforesaid NIT. The said bid was accepted and, on 01.09.2006, IPPL issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the Project.

6. On 03.10.2006, IPPL issued a Work Order in the name of Triune Projects Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, on 25.01.2007, the amended Work Order was issued in the name of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner claims that the tender documents were structured as a consultancy contract for Engineering Procurement Construction Management (EPCM) Project Execution Mode. However, in pre-award meetings, it was decided that the Project would be executed through lump-sum turnkey packages to be executed by the contractors and, therefore, the scope of services for the consultant would be on Project Management Consultancy (PMC) Mode.

8. The petitioner states that due to the change in the mode of execution of the work, the proper contractual documents could not be drawn up. However, it claims that it commenced the work on the Project after receiving the LOI and a part of the Project (described by the petitioner as Part I of the Project) was completed by December, 2006 except for the work of soil testing, which took further period of five months to complete.

9. The petitioner claims that by a letter dated 15.06.2007, IPPL asked the petitioner to hold commencement of Part II of the work till its confirmation. The petitioner was asked to resume the work by a letter dated 08.09.2007. It is stated that in view of the delay caused – which the petitioner claims is entirely attributable to IPPL – the project completion schedule was extended to April 2009.

10. Alleging that the petitioner had breached the terms of the contract, IPPL terminated the contract between the parties by a notice dated 12.08.2008. In its notice, IPPL alleged that the petitioner had breached the contract between the parties inasmuch as the petitioner had been negligent in performing its functions. IPPL further informed the petitio