Navin Chawla, J.

This 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 30.11.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Concession Agreement dated 30.09.2009 executed between the parties for the work of “Design, Engineering, Construction, Development, Finance, Operation and Maintenance of 4 laning of Pune Solapur Section of NH 9 from Km 144.400 to Km 249.000 in the State of Maharashtra under NHDP Phase III on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis”.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal by the Impugned Award granted the following claims of the respondent:-

S. NO.	Description	As claimed	As awarded
I.	Damages under Clause 4.2 of the Concession Agreement	8.35	Nil
II.	Damages under Clause 10.3.4 of the Concession Agreement	3.18	Nil
III.	Compensation under Clause 35.2 of the Concession Agreement, or otherwise under law
A.	Loss on account of Escalation	97.12	88.38
B.	Loss of Interest during Construction	141.88	140.12
C.	Costs of underutilized and idle resources
i.	Costs of underutilized and idle resources prior to declaration of the Appointed Date	96.73	46.98
ii.	Costs of underutilized and idle resources after declaration of the Appointed Date	115.12	70.85
D.	Costs of construction of additional diversions	1.31	Nil
E.	Loss of Toll Revenue
i.	Loss of Toll Revenue on account of partial commercial operations of the Project Highway for reasons attributable to the Respondent	232.10	66.30
ii.	Loss of Toll Revenue on account of the delayed issuance of Provisional Certificate for reasons attributable to the Respondent	19.65	7.42
F.	Cost of maintenance of the Existing Lanes? for an extended period	1.67	Nil
G.	Cost of additional Programme Management Fee incurred or liable to be incurred by the Claimant	40.10	12.00
H	Cost of additional premium amounts paid by the Claimant towards renewal of its insurance policies during the Construction Period	2.31	1.44
Total Amount		759.52	433.49
IV.	Claim under Clause 35.3 for extension of the Concession Period	1198 days	Nil

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has held that the respondent had given up its claim under Clause 4.2 and 10.3.4 of the Concession Agreement. He submits that Clause 4.2 and 10.3.4 provide for liquidated damages in the case of the petitioner failing to procure fulfillment of any or all of the Conditions Precedent set forth in Clause 4.1.2 within the period specified in respect thereof and on the petitioner failing to provide and grant the Right of Way to the Concessionaire in respect of the land included in the Appendix to the Concession Agreement respectively. The petitioner having been found in breach of compliance of the Conditions Precedent as set out in clause 4.1.2 of the Concession Agreement for not being able to handover the land in terms of Clause 10.3.1 of the Concession Agreement, the liquidated damages only under Clause 4.2 and 10.3.4, if at all, could have been granted in favour of the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal, however, has proceeded to award damages under Clause 35.2 of the Concession Agreement, which is a Clause providing for liquidated damages for breach other than the one for which damages have been provided in other parts of the Agreement. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. Gupta Brothers Steel Tubes Limited, (2009) 10 SCC 63, he submits that Clause 35.2 of the Concession Agreement could not hav