An arbitral award must be supported by reasoning and evidence; a Minority Award is merely an opinion and cannot prevail over a Majority Award; the Court cannot modify an arbitral award.

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:

"A) call for the records of the arbitration matter between Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. M/s. NHPC Ltd. before the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Presiding Arbitrator, Sh. K.K. Madan and Sh. V.K. Tyagi, Co-Arbitrators;

B) set aside/Modify the Ld. Arbitral Award dated 07.10.2019 passed by the Two Arbitrators, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Sh. K.K. Madan to the extent sought in this petition i.e. quantification and interest and modify the amount to Rs. 208.50 Crores, as given in the Supporting Award of the Third Arbitrator, which has been based upon established and accepted formulae as well as taking due cognizance of the material and evidence on record with the Ld. Arbitral 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 respondent proposed a Hydro Electric Project on river Chenab at Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter "the work"). On 10th April 1995, the respondent 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 respondent 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 petitioner herein, also submitted its bid to the tender floated by the respondent 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 petitioner was not able to complete the work within the stipulated term of 33 months. Time extensions were also granted to the petitioner 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 petitioner. Accordingly, the final bill for the two packages was also furnished by the petitioner.

e. In the said bills produced by the petitioner, there were additional costs which were said to have been incurred by the petitioner due to overstay at the site. The petitioner claimed a total amount of Rs. 360.56 Crores, which was rejected by the respondent 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 petitioner herein had submitted no claim undertaking as demanded by the respondent. The petitioner objected to the ground taken by the respondent.

f. In the background of the aforesaid discrepancies, the petitioner 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