JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral). - The petitioner by this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, impugns the award dated 03.07.2021 rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal deciding Issue no.3 in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

2. Issue no. 3 as framed reads as under:-

'Issue No. 3

Whether the action of the Respondent/PMC in granting provisional extension of time is in conformity with the terms of the agreement?'

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that issue no.3 is intrinsically connected with issue no. 5 and the Arbitral Tribunal has erred in deciding issue no.3 in isolation.

4. Issue no.5 as framed reads as under:

'Issue No. 5

'Whether the actions of the Respondent/PMC in imposing liquidated damages/compensation for delay with retrospective effect is inconformity with the terms of the agreement?'

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Arbitral Tribunal has erred in rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the extension of the time granted was only provisional and petitioner had reserved its rights to impose liquidated damages at the end of the work.

6. Learned Sen