JUDGMENT

C .Hari Shankar, J. - As noted in the order dated 28th July, 2020, this petition was heard finally, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. It is, therefore, being disposed of, by the present judgement.

2. M/S EFS Facilities Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "EFS") has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to challenge the award dated 20th May, 2020, whereby the learned Arbitral Tribunal has arbitrated on the dispute between EFS and M/s Indeen Bio Power Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Indeen").

3. Efs was earlier known as M/s. Daikia India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DIPL"). DIPL, vide Share Purchase Agreement dated 29th March, 2012, sold its entire equity to EFS, which resulted in EFS stepping into the shoes of DIPL.

Facts

4. The controversy between EFS and Indeen revolves, essentially, around five agreements, viz.

(i) a Project Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "PDA") dated 2nd

(ii) a Synchronization and Coordination Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "SCA") dated 8 May, 2010, th

(iii) an undated Supply Contract Agreement, September, 2011,

(iv) an undated Service Contract Agreement and

(v) an undated Works Contract Agreement.

All agreements were between DIPL and Indeen.

5. The PDA was executed between DIPL and Indeen on 2nd May, 2010 for setting up an 8 MW Master residue Biomass Plant at Chandli, Tehsil Devli, Distt Tonk, Rajasthan. Article 1.1 of the PDA read thus:

"1.1 Daikia will engage in preparing and providing Indeen by August 2, 2010 with:

(i) a firm and binding financial proposal for an EPC Agreement pursuant to which Daikia would be retained to perform the detailed engineering, procurement and construction of the Plant and under which Daikia would undertake to procure that the Plant would be completed on the basis of a guaranteed cost, completion date, and performance standard substantially on the terms set out in the EPC Agreement term sheet attached hereto as Annex A;

(ii) a firm and binding financial proposal for an O & M Agreement pursuant to which Daikia would be retained to operate the Plant following its construction and under which Daikia would undertake to procure that the Plant meets certain agreed key technical performance indicators ("KPIs") including availability and heat rate, substantially on the terms set out in the O & M Agreement term sheet attached hereto as Annex B;'

(iii) a final business plan (the "Final Business Plan") built by replacing the indicative performance guarantees and budgetary EPC & O & M estimates of the Reference Business Plan, by the firm and binding prices and performances of the EPC and O & M Agreements, and giving as a result a final return on equity. calculated as an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on the equity investment made by Indeen as compared to the free cash flow generated by the Project, in accordance with the assumptions and methodology used in the Reference Business Plan."

As such, Article 1.1 of the PDA required DIPL and Indeen to execute an EPC Agreement and an O & M Agreement on or before 2nd August, 2010, extendable, under Article 1.2, by two months. Article 3.1 of the PDA provided that, unless the PDA was terminated earlier in point of time, it would remain in force till 2nd August, 2010 or till the execution of the EPC Agreement and the O & M Agreement, whichever was earlier.

6. Efs has sought to submit, in the present petition, that no Final Business Plan, as contemplated by Clause 1.1(iii) of the PDA, was ever finalized between DIPL and Indeen. It is also contended by EFS that the PDA expired by efflux of time on 2nd August, 2010, as neither the EPC contract nor the O & M Agreement had been executed till the said date.

7. On 18th January, 2011, the following e-mail was sent by Paramdeep, an employee of DIPL, to Mahesh Indru Manusukhani, Managing Director (