M. SUNDAR, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity).

2. To be noted, memorandum of grounds of appeal states that this is an appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 9(1) of the Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but no specific provision of A and C Act has been given. (To be noted Rule 9(1) is apparently a typographical error and there is no sub-rule (1) in the said Order XXXVI Rule 9).

3. We treat it as an appeal primarily under Section 37 of the A and C Act as the instant intra-court appeal is directed against an order dated 22.09.2015 made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a petition under Section 34 of the A and C Act, being O.P.No.512 of 2014. The learned single Judge has dismissed O.P.No.512 of 2014, confirming an Award dated 29.7.2014 made by a three member Arbitral Tribunal. A perusal of the memorandum of grounds of Original Side Appeal in the instant intra-court appeal before us reveals that this appeal has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules of this Court read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is clearly impermissible, in the light of section 37 of the A and C Act and in the light of the elucidation on this aspect of the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Fuerst Day Lawson Limited Vs. Jindal Exports Limited [(2011) 8 SCC 333]. Therefore, without standing on technicalities, as stated supra, we treat this as an appeal under Section 37 of the A and C Act.

4. To be noted, while dismissing O.P.No.512 of 2014, learned Single Judge has also passed an order in Application No.3726 of 2015 taken out by the first respondent before us seeking a direction to deposit certain specific sum of money in an interest bearing no-lien bank account pursuant to the arbitral award. This application has been closed. However, the instant intra-court appeal being O.S.No.231 of 2015 is directed against O.P.No.512 of 2014 only.

5. This being an appeal under Section 37 of the A and C Act, it would suffice if a thumbnail sketch of facts, which are essential for understanding and appreciating this order, are given. We do so under the caption 'Factual Matrix' infra.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

6(a) The appellant Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited is hereinafter referred to as 'CICTPL' for the sake of brevity. The first respondent before us, namely, Kamarajar Port Limited, is hereinafter referred to as 'Ennore Port for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

6(b) Some time in October, 2002, Ennore Port invited tenders for setting up a common user terminal with all backup facilities and equipment on a Build-Operate-Transfer (hereinafter referred to as 'BOT' for brevity) basis for a period of 30 years. There were several bidders. The bid made by a consortium of three member companies emerged successful having inter-alia offered a revenue share of 52.524%. This consortium of three member companies, as per the tender conditions floated a special purpose vehicle and that the special purpose vehicle is CICTPL.

6(c) As per the tender conditions, the special purpose vehicle CICTPL and Ennore Port entered into an agreement / contract dated 14.9.2006. This agreement / contract which is styled as Licence Agreement is the fulcrum of the case and is hereinafter referred to as the 'said agreement' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

6(d) There is an arbitration clause in the said agreement.

6(e) Certain disputes arose between the parties qua the said contract. The disputes reached the arbitral tribunal via an expert committee (as contemplated in the said agreement). There were several issues before the arbitral tribunal.

6(f) The arbitral tribunal is a three member arbitral tribunal. The Presiding Arbitrator is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and two retired Judges of this cou