The Arbitral Tribunal must provide reasons for its award, and it cannot pass an award on the basis of equity without express authorization from the parties.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") raising objections to the Award dated 7th October 2019, corrected on 18th December 2019, (hereinafter "the impugned Award"). The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"Set aside the Impugned Majority Award passed by (Retd.) Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy and Sh. K.K. Madan ("Ld. Majority Tribunal") to the extent that it allows the claims of the Respondent and rejected Counter-Claims No. 1,2,10,13,14,16 and 17;

(b) Set aside the Impugned Minority Award passed by the V. K. Tyagi ("Ld. Minority Tribunal");"

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The following course of events has led to the controversy and disputes between the parties which are before this Court:

a. The petitioner proposed a Hydro Electric Project on river Chenab at Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter "the work"). On 10th April 1995, the petitioner invited fresh bids for the work, after the same was abandoned by a previous awardee of the work, namely Dumaz-Sogea Borie SAE and was continued by the petitioner on its own between 1992 to 1995.

b. In the second phase, the work was divided into two packages, an Upstream Area Work and a Downstream Area Work. The Joint Venture of M/s Jaiprakash Industries Limited and M/s Statkraft Anlegg AS, subsequently amalgamated with M/s Jaypee Cement Limited and came to be known as M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited, the respondent herein, also submitted its bid to the tender floated by the petitioner on 19th August 1995 and were awarded the work for the two packages on 3rd March 1997.

c. Accordingly, on 9th April 1997, the parties entered into a Contract, wherein the scope of work awarded was delineated including the time for completion of the work. However, due to certain hindrances, the respondent was not able to complete the work within the stipulated term of 33 months. Time extensions were also granted to the respondent to complete the work and hence, the project which was to be completed till the year 2000 was extended till 2007.

d. On 11th May 2007, the certificate of completion was issued to the respondent. Accordingly, the final bill for the two packages was also furnished by the respondent.

e. In the said bills produced by the respondent, there were additional costs which were said to have been incurred by the respondent. The respondent claimed a total amount of Rs. 360.56 Crores, which was rejected by the petitioner vide letter dated 25th January 2010 on the grounds that, first, the extension granted were as per the General Conditions of Contract entered into between the parties, second, the claim was not maintainable since it was put forth by M/s Jaiprakash Association Limited, whereas it was not an entity when the Contract was executed, and third, the respondent herein had submitted no claim undertaking as demanded by the petitioner. The respondent objected to the ground taken by the petitioner.

f. In the background of the aforesaid discrepancies, the respondent herein invoked Clause 39.2 of the Contract and invoked dispute resolution mechanism of arbitration to resolve and amicably settle the issues between the parties.

g. Accordingly, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted comprising of three Arbitrators, including a Presiding Arbitrator, and arbitration proceedings were initiated between the parties.

h. Upon completion of pleadings and conclusion of arguments, the learned Tribunal passed the Minority and Majority Award dated 7th October 2019, which came to be corrected on 18th December 2019.

i. The petitioner, being aggrieved of both the Minority and Majority Award has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

SUBMISSIONS

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties were heard at length on the instant petition. Both the sides have also filed their written submissions, which are on record. A joint consideration of the arguments ad