Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. The present petition under Section 11(2) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "KCT").

BRIEF BACKGROUND

2. The essential facts leading to the dispute between the parties are within a narrow compass. The Respondent, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "THDC") is a joint venture corporation of Government of India and Government of U.P. THDC invited tenders for three packages for the work of construction of Tehri Hydro Power Plant. KCT submitted its tenders for the three packages vide their letter dated 14.12.1993. THDC accepted the offer of KCT and issued Letter of Intent dated 8th November, 1995 and Contract Agreements to this effect were signed on 03.01.1996 separately for the three packages between the parties. KCT contends that the present petition relates to Package-III specifically, which is denied by THDC. It is the submission of THDC that KCT has raised disputes pertaining to other packages as well. It is, however, not in dispute that Clause 60 of the "General Conditions of the Contract" provided for a four tier system for settlement of disputes. For the facility of reference, Clause 60 is reproduced hereunder:-

"Claues 60.0 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

(i) If the Contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract or considers any decision of the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of work to be unacceptable, he shall promptly ask the Engineer-in-Charge in writing for written instructions or decision. Thereupon the Engineer-in-Charge shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of thirty days of such request.

Upon receipt of the written instructions or decision, the contractor shall promptly proceed without delay to comply with such instructions or decision.

If the Engineer-in-Charge fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within a period of thirty days after being requested for or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Engineer-in-Charge, the contractor may within thirty days after receiving the instructions or decision, file a written appeal with the CMD, THDC stating clearly and in detail, the basis for the objection. The CMD will consider the written appeal and make his decision on the basis of relevant contract provisions, together with the facts and circumstance involved in the dispute. The decision will be furnished in writing to the contractor within thirty days after the receipt of the contractor's written appeal.

If the contractor is still dis-satisfied with the decision, the contractor, within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the decision, shall indicate to the CMD, THDC his intention to refer the matter to the Disputes Review Board (DRB) and within period of another fifteen days shall formally appeal to the Disputes Review Board.

The constitution of the Dispute Review Board and the procedure to be adopted by it for resolving the disputes is elaborated in the TABLE-A, provided, however, all such disputes which may arise prior to the constitution of the Board, shall be taken up for consideration at its first meeting convened not later than thirty days upon its constitution. As specified under para 1 of Annex-A, the decisions/recommendations of Dispute Review Board in respect of the disputes involving the individual claims upto Rs.200.00 lacs shall be binding on the THDC and the contractor. In the case of the dispute involving individual claim beyond Rs.200.00 lac, if inspite of the recommendations/decision of the Disputes Review Board, the dispute remains unresolved, either party, within 15 days of the receipt of the aforesaid recommendations/decision of the board, may appeal the decision back to the Board for review. However, if even after this review of its recommendati