Indira Banerjee, J.

1. The appeal, being O.S.A.No.20 of 2014, filed by M/s.Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Chennai Container”, is against a judgment and order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”, for setting aside of the arbitral award dated 26.11.2012 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising the former Chief Justice of India, R.C.Lahoti, and two other Retired Judges of this Court.

2. To develop and manage the Chennai Container Terminal and to make it a hub port, through private sector participation, the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, invited offers from International parties on 20.11.1997. In response to the invitation, three entities submitted their bids. One of them was a company by name P & O Australia Ports Pty. Limited.

3. Australia Ports Pty. Limited formed a consortium along with three other companies, namely, Jakari Express Private Limited, Mumbai; Meherji Cassinath Limited, Mauritus and Chettinad Logistics Private Limited. The offer of consortium headed by Australian company was provisionally accepted. Thereafter, the said Australian Ports Pty. Limited along with its consortium members, floated the company Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited on 12.9.2000 for implementation of the project.

4. A license agreement was executed between Chennai Container and the Board of Trustees for the Chennai Port, hereinafter referred to as “the Chennai Port Trust”, some of the relevant provisions of which are set out herein below:

Article I: Definition and Interpretations:

'Hub Port' is a 'direct call Port/load center Port' which aggregates containers from the places of origin through feeder vessels and dispatches them to the destination/transshipment ports through larger vessels.

"Main Line Vessels" means large container vessel plying between Hub Port without any intermittent transshipment in the neighbouring Ports.

Article 1.03 this Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties regarding the project and supersedes all previous written and/or oral representations and/or arrangements regarding the project. If there is any aspect of the Project not covered by any of the provisions of this Agreement, then and only in that event, reference may be made by the parties to the Request for Proposals issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport including addendum, clarifications given in writing and the submissions of the Licensee and the technical and financial proposals submitted by the License.

Any amendment, addition or variation to this Agreement shall be valid and binding only if the same are mutually agreed upon by the Parties, approved by the GOI and executed in writing and signed by the Licensor and the Licensee.

1.03(h) Any word or expression used in this Agreement shall, unless defined or construed in this Agreement, bear its ordinary English meaning.

Article III

Article III of the License Agreement deals with Project: Requirements, Rights and Obligations. It has 12 sub clauses: 3.01: Cost of Implementation, Operation and Maintenance; 3.02 Independent Engineer; 3.03 Preparation of Designs and Drawings; 3.04 Review and Approval of the Designs and Drawings; 3.05 Environmental Clearance; 3.06 Investment; 3.07 Construction Phase; 3.08 Operations & Maintenance Phase; 3.09 Main Line Vessels; 3.10 Infrastructure Development Cess by a competent Government Authority; 3.11 Personnel Related Obligations; and 3.12 Utilities and Services.

3.09 Main Line Vessels:

(a). The Licensee shall develop Chennai as a Hub Port and ensure that within 3 years from the Date of Commercial Operation, Main Line Vessels also call on the Port. It shall be condition of the License that the following minimum throughput shall be contributed by n