The Court upheld the Tribunal's factual findings and interpretation of the contract terms, emphasizing the limited scope for judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction and development of real estate, including Ports and other things. It bagged the contract for the development of a Karaikal Port as a private Port in the Union Territory of Pondicherry under the Public-Private participation mode. The first respondent is a company registered under the laws of The Netherlands engaged in the business of Dredging and Marine Construction universally. There was an earlier agreement entered into between the parties on 24.02.2009. This contract was completed duly without any dispute. Another agreement was entered into on 21.05.2009 for Dredging the access channel and the turning circle at the Karaikal Port. The contract was in the nature of FIDIC (Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conciels). It was agreed that TSHD Volvox Olympia shall be mobilised for carrying out the work. The contract specifically states that the work involves Drudging of soft and medium dense sand. Thus, it does not include removal of stiff marine clay, dense, hard and cemented silts, which cannot be dredged by TSHD dredger. It is specifically mentioned in the contract that lump sum price is not admissible. There were two addendums to the contract dated 20.07.2009 and 04.08.2009 respectively. The addendum No.2 once again reiterates that dredges to be deployed are Volvex Asia and the HAM318. The extent of depth involved was also mentioned along with the width. Thus, the contract among other things makes clear, two factors. The removal does not include certain materials, including rock and dredging has to be done in a particular manner using a specified mechanism. Thus, if one has to see both these factors together the machinery mandated to be used is incapable of doing any other excavation for sucking other materials, such as, stiff marine clay etc.

2. The first respondent did commence the work of dredging and proceeded with it. They have raised invoices, which were duly certified. The internal communications of the petitioner also indicates that they were accordingly recommended for payment. However, the petitioner did not provide any Letter of Credit for any of the bills certified to facilitate payment as per the terms of the contract. The ongoing work got struck because of the under water surface being hard and incapable of clearance using the machinery agreed upon. Finding that no payment was forthcoming and unable to proceed further, the work was stopped and the contract was terminated, after exchange of communications. The petitioner approached this Court and obtained an interim order directing the first respondent to proceed with the work. Ultimately, the application was rejected. For the interregnum period alone, as ordered by the Court, payment was made. Thus, claims in the nature of money have been made by the first respondent invoking arbitration clause. The petitioner also made counter claims.

3. After exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal, which was constituted by three eminent personalities, framed 16 issues and dealt with them in extenso. Documents have been marked and parties were examined. Accordingly, the following award was passed.

“For all the reasons stated above, the claimants are entitled to for and towards the first 6 invoices the sum of Rs.375418344/- as claimed and also as admitted by the respondents in the inter office memos as well as in the tabular statements filed along with the statement of counter claims filed by the respondent. So far as the other 6 invoices which were only partially certified by the respondents as could be found from the inter office memos, we are of the view, having regard to the findings recorded supra, the claimants would be entitled to the amounts as allowed by us in Rs.3047038/-, relating to dredging by Volvox Olympia, Rs.858470/- pertaining to Nagapattinam Port dues, Rs.3480,362/- relating to the trial dredging in terms of the High Court order, then Rs.15945,400/- towards the quantity of 73135 cubic meter