JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “The Act, 1996”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) Set aside the Award dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case Ref. No. 05/02/2020.

(B) Allow and accordingly grant Counter Claim as prayed for by the Petitioner in Arbitration Case Ref. No. 05/02/2020.

(C) Award costs in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.

(D) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the Petitioner is a Public Limited Company that primarily deals in the area of large speciated application pumps and has diversified into the power sector. Flowmore Jagabandhu JV, the Petitioner's joint venture with Jagabandhu Enterprises Ltd. was awarded a contract for the Design, Engineering, Supply, Erection, Testing, and Commissioning of a 132/33 KV, 2 x 50 MVA grid sub-station including the construction of Control Room Building & approach road as well as other civil works for 8 transmission lines by Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter “JUSNL”).

3. The Respondent was engaged by the Petitioner as the manufacturer and supplier of customized towers and other ancillary goods as per the specifications and other details provided the respondent for transmission lines to be erected for its client JUSNL, in various districts vide the Contract/Purchase Order dated 02.03.2019.Prior to this, the respondent vide an e-mail dated 20.02.2019, sent a purchase enquiry to the claimant for the manufacture and supply of structural material for 122/132 KV Sub-Station for JUSNL Tender NIT. No. 244 to 249.Pursuant to negotiation and discussion, Purchase Order no. Ref. FL/Skipperj-JUSML-PKG-244-249/60 dated 02.03.2019 was issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent, for the supply of fabricated and galvanized HDG tower parts, stubs, cleats (for both mild steel and HT steel), MS templates, earthing of tower materials, and fasteners for the project.

4. According to the Respondent, as per the contract, the Petitioner was to provide structural drawings, shop sketches, BOM of items to the Respondent. Based on these, the Respondent was to arrange sketches and BOM for approval before mass production. The Respondent was to get all drawings/documents approved directly from JUSNL.

5. According to the Petitioners, as per the mutual agreement between the parties dated 8th March 2019, it was evidently clear that the approvals and drawings were to come from the Respondent.

6. The Supplier was to start manufacturing material only after getting a written Manufacturing Clearance (hereinafter “MC”) from the buyer. The quantity cleared in MC only was to be manufactured by the supplier. Any material manufactured without getting the MC from the buyer was to be rejected. Hence, the Respondent had to provide a prototype-type to the Petitioner to conduct an inspection, subsequent to which an advance payment was to be made.

7. The transaction between the parties lasted for a brief duration of 3 months, after which it was prematurely terminated by the Petitioner on 25th July 2019 based on the alleged delay and breach of contractual obligations by the Respondent. Further, the Petitioner engaged with RR Ispat as its supplier on the same day the contract with the Respondent was terminated.

8. In January 2020, an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, bearing O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 3/2020 came to be filed by the Respondent before this Court. By way of consent, vide order dated 27th January, 2020, the learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the this Court in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 3/2020 titled Skipper Ltd. vs. Flowmore Ltd.

9. Thereafter, the learned Sole Arbitrator rendered its Award on 05.07.2022 and awa