Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Appeal assails the concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. The Respondent had challenged the deduction from its Running Bills of a sum of Rs. 1,32,04,290/- inclusive of interest. The Appellant made these deductions on the ground of liquidated damages. An Advance Purchase Order was placed by the Appellant on the Respondent on 23.10.1996 for the supply of (a) 21 Nos. 60 M Tubular Tower and (b) 108 Nos. 80 M Tubular Towers. Eventually, on 19.11.1996, the Appellant placed a Purchase Order on the Respondent for the aforementioned numbers of Towers for a total value of Rs. 9,10,49,192. The terms, inter alia, were that the supplies would be effected only after issuance of Quality Approval by the DOT and secondly that these supplies would be completed within six months, that is, on or before 28.5.1997. The necessary Drawings were supplied by the Appellant to the Respondent on 9.12.1996.

2. Clauses 16.1 and 16.2 of the Contract, which deals with the imposition and recovery of liquidated damages, read thus:-

16.1 The date of delivery of the stores stipulated in the acceptance of tender should be deemed to be the essence of the