Amitava Roy, J.

1. This appeal carries a challenge to the judgment and order dated 07.11.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Golaghat in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01 of 2001, setting aside the arbitral award dated 23.09.2000, in Case No. 9644/OLG/ESR/TE, awarding inter alia an amount of Rs. 29.76 crores, in favour of the Appellant together with interest, pendentlite and post award, at the rates recorded therein.

2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Ganguly and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. A. Sagar, D. Rahul Roy, D. Senapati and Md. Aslam Advocates for the Appellant and Mr. S.S. Roy, Mr. G. Chakraborty and Mr. H. Roy, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. K. Goswami and Ms. P. Khrimey Advocates for the Respondent.

3. The prefatory facts in brief would have to be stated. The Appellant, Daelim Industrial Company (hereinafter for short as 'DIC'), is a Company incorporated in Seoul, Korea, having its registered office there. The Respondent Numaligarh Refinery Limited (hereinafter for short as 'NRL') is a Govt. of India undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Guwahati, in the State of Assam, India. It, through its consultant Engineers India Limited (hereinafter for short as 'EIL'), also a Govt, of India undertaking on 22.11.1993 invited global quotations for building of a Cogeneration Captive Power Plant for its Petroleum Refinery at Numaligarh in Assam, India. Daelim Engineering Company Limited, a Company incorporated in Seoul, Korea together with its consortium partner Turbotecnica SPA of Italy, contested the global bid and following the scrutiny on their bids and negotiation on 24.11.1994, the NRL by its Fax of Intent dated 31.01.1995, awarded the work to DEC. Three contract agreements were thereafter signed between NRL and DEC and Turbotecnica, the particulars whereof, are as follows:

i) Contract dated 11.04.1995 for Overseas supplies and services with price consideration of US $ 14,400,000 and Deutsche Marc (DM) 22,990,000.

ii) Contract dated 11.04.1995 for Indigenous supplies and services with price consideration of Rs. 681,000,000/-.

iii) Consolidated contract dated 12.04.1995 integrating the aforementioned two contracts.

4. The total contract price embodied in the above two contract agreements dated 11.04.1995 was on a Turnkey basis and the time schedule for completion of the works as per the consolidated contract was as follows:

i) First train of Gas Turbine Generator (GHG), Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) and Utility Boiler (UB) within 21 months of the issue of Fax Intent i.e. by 31.10.1996 and ii) balance plant within 24 months of issue of the Fax Intent i.e. by 31.01.1997.

5. In course of the execution of the project disputes and differences arose between the parties whereafter in terms of Clause 9 (b) of the Consolidated Agreement, DEC referred the same on 07.08.1997 before the International Chamber of Commerce; International Court of Arbitration, Paris for resolution thereof In its statement of claim, which was accompanied by the Contract Agreements and Situation Reports pertaining to the progress of the works hindrances encountered and the resultant delays, DEC claimed an amount of Rs. 37.9 crores under different heads. NRL disputing the claim, submitted its written reply on 20.09.1997, to which DEC filed its rejoinder on 04.11.1997.

6. In terms of the International Chamber of Commerce's Arbitration Rules 1988 (hereinafter also referred to as the 'Rules'), the DEEC and NRL nominated their Arbitrator. The International Court of Arbitration following confirmation of the said appointments, nominated a third Arbitrator-cum-Chairman to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal. At that stage, DEC updated its total claim to be at Rs. 55.8 crores, to which NRL submitted its written reply.

The DEC in response thereto, submitted its rejoinder, NRL, however, did not raise any counter claim.

7. On the basis of the documents placed before the Tribunal and after heari