JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act") seeking setting aside of majority Award dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the Claim of the Respondent herein and rejected the Counter Claim of the Petitioner.

2. The brief background facts are that the Government of India desired that the petroleum resources at the Kharsang Oil Fields (hereinafter referred to as "KS") be exploited with utmost expedition and in accordance with international petroleum industry practices. Therefore, Government of India entered into a Production Sharing Contract (hereinafter referred to as "PSC") on 16.06.1995 with Oil India Ltd., Geopetrol International Inc., Enpro India Ltd. and the Petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as the Operator under the Contract.

3. Petitioner herein as an Operator for and on behalf of KS required services for acquisition, processing and interpretation of Seismic 3D data in KS. Thus an Agreement dated 13.12.2007 was entered into between the Respondent herein and the Petitioner. Respondent Geophysical Institute of Israel is an Israeli Government Company. On 03.01.2008, a Sub-Contract Agreement was entered into between the Respondent and Asian Oilfields Services Ltd. with Respondent as the Contractor and Asian Oilfields as a sub-Contractor. This was with the approval of the Petitioner. Contract was to be performed by the Respondent in three stages (a) Data collection/acquisition (b) processing and (c) interpretation.

Case of the Petitioner (Respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal)

4. Under the terms of the Contract, in order to collect acceptable Seismic Data, Respondent had to drill shot holes of 20 m for loading the charge and exploding the same. It was mentioned in the Contract itself, that in case where drilling up to 20 m was not possible, two holes of 10 m could be drilled or four holes of 5 m, called pattern holes. It was mentioned that Respondent will not drill any holes less than 5 m and the area covered under the survey shall be 52.5 km with 2760 shots of work.

5. Respondent had admittedly in the past, undertaken similar operations in the State of Assam and Tripura. Further, Respondent as per the terms of the Contract, before commencing its operations had undertaken an experimental drilling at the site from 29.08.2007 to 02.09.2007 and had, therefore, acquainted itself with the geological and other working conditions of the site. Parties had expressly agreed that time shall be the essence of the Contract as the work had to be undertaken by the Respondent before the onset of monsoon on account of fair weather in Arunachal Pradesh coming to an end by mid-June for purposes of drilling. Therefore, the Contract specifically provided that mobilisation of equipment, which was the sole responsibility of the Respondent, had to be completed within 60 days from signing of the Contract. Contract was signed on 13.12.2007 and, therefore, Respondent ought to have mobilised its equipment latest by 11.02.2008. However, mobilisation was completed only around late April 2008 and it was only on 15.04.2008 that shooting commenced. Thus,