JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition under Sections 34 (1) & (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "The Act, 1996") has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i) allow the present application and set aside the impugned award dated 30.11.2018 and order dated 27.02.2019 to the extent of the claims rejected by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal against the Applicant and/or;

ii) pass such order or further orders as you may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that, on 27th November, 2009, the Respondent invited proposals & vide Request for Qualification (RFQ) for short listing of bidders for the project of construction, operation & maintenance of Bhopal-Sanchi Section of NH-86 Extn. in the State of Madhya Pradesh by two lanes on Design, Built, Finance, Operate & Transfer on Annuity (DBFOT Annuity) basis. The bid submitted by the consortium of Pratibha Industries Ltd (PIL) and Abhyudaya Housing & Construction Pvt. ltd. (AHCPL) was accepted and the contract was awarded vide LOA dated 21st May 2010. In terms of the bid documents, the Petitioner Company was incorporated as the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to undertake the work.

3. A Concession Agreement (CA) was signed between the parties on 22nd July, 2010 for a period of 15 years, including a construction period of 24 months for the length of 53.775 km and the Petitioner was responsible for constructing project facilities as well as Operation and Maintenance of the Project Highway and other obligations set forth in the Contract. Upon achieving the Provisional Completion of the Project Highway, the Claimant was entitled to receive payment of Annuities@ Rs.12.95 crores at half yearly intervals for a period of 15 years from the Appointed Date excluding the Construction Period.

4. There were issues between the parties in relation to completion of work on time. Upon the said issues being escalated, the Petitioner terminated the contract vide termination notice dated 13th November 2014 averring that the Applicant failed to execute the work because the Respondent miserably failed to meet its various obligations under the Concession Agreement. On the other hand, the Respondent terminated the contract vide notice dated 31st December 2014, on the ground that the Applicant failed to execute its obligations within the contract in the given time. The Independent Engineer in its project closure report certified that the value of the executed work by the Applicant as on the date of termination of contract, i.e. 31st December, 2014 was Rs.24,17,52,984/-.

5. The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause, i.e., clause 44.3 of the contract, to resolve the dispute between the parties vide a letter dated 24th February, 2016. Thereafter, this Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.

6. The learned Arbitrator had framed the following issues for being determined:

a. Whether the Respondent had misrepresented that it had good and valid right to the site and the power and authority to grant license in respect thereto to the Claimant in terms of the Concession Agreement?

b. Whether the delay in execution of the Works, even in the available stretches, was due to breaches and defaults of the Respondent?

c. Whether the termination of Contract by either party is valid?

d. Whether the Claimant proves that it is entitled to Claims as set out the Abstract of Claims at paragraph J a