JUDGMENT :

M. Sundar, J.

1. There is a sole Petitioner and a lone Respondent in the instant Original Petition (hereinafter 'O.P.' for brevity).

2. Sole Petitioner and lone Respondent in the instant O.P. are juristic persons, i.e. Companies incorporated in India and both are Public Limited Companies. Petitioner-Company which goes by the name 'Ion Exchange India Limited' shall be referred to as 'IEL' and Respondent-Company which goes by the name 'Angeripalayam Common Effluent Treatment Plant Limited' shall be referred to as 'ACL', both for the sake of brevity.

3. Instant O.P. has been filed under Section 34 of 'Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' ('A & C Act' for brevity) assailing an Arbitral Award, dated 18.4.2018 made by a 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for brevity) constituted by Three Members. This Award, dated 18.4.2018 made by AT which is being assailed and which is being sought to be set aside in the instant O.P. shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned Award' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience.

4. In the scheme of A and C Act, Section 34 is slotted under Chapter VII captioned 'RECOURSE AGAINST ARBITRAL AWARD'. A perusal of Section 34 also reveals that recourse to a Court against an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of A and C Act may be made only by an 'Application'. Also to be noted, caption to Section 34 itself reads 'APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD'. Be that as it may, with regard to a legal proceeding which is in the nature of recourse against an Arbitral Award, the same is being assigned the nomenclature 'Original Petition' in the Registry of this Court and therefore, instant proceeding is being referred to as 'O.P.', for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5. Minimum facts, which are absolutely essential (sans other particulars and details) for understanding and appreciating this Order, shall be set out infra under the caption 'Precise of Facts'.

6. Precise of Facts:

(a) IEL and ACL entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, dated 22.4.2006 followed by Supplementary Memoranda of Agreements, dated 12.9.2006, 19.6.2008 & 18.12.2009. IEL and ACL before me submitted that the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement together with three Supplementary Memoranda of Agreements collectively constitute the governing Contract between the parties and that this governing Contract is the epicenter of the lis before AT. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and clarity, the aforementioned Memorandum of Agreement together with three Supplementary Memoranda of Agreements shall collectively be referred to as 'said Contract'.

(b) Said Contract is for supply of 'Effluent Treatment Plant' ('ETP' for brevity) with reject management systems incorporating certain specific technologies, one of which is nano filtration. Arbitral disputes between IEL and ACL are that IEL supplied an ETP which is only 3 MLD capacity, though said Contract was for 10 MLD capacity. According to ACL, said Contract was for supply of ETP of 10 MLD capacity. To be noted, this Court is informed that 'MLD' stands for 'Million of Litres Per Day'. ETP ultimately supplied by IEL did not meet the specifications adumbrated in said Contract, is the second limb of Complaint. These two limbs of Arbitral disputes, namely, one touching upon capacity of ETP and the other pertaining to specifications of ETP can be described as the crux and gravamen of arbitral disputes between IEL and ACL.

(c) It is also not in dispute before this Court that Arbitration Agreement between parties to the instant O.P. is in the form of a clause in the said Contract. As would be evident from the narration thus far, said Contract is constituted by Memorandum of Agreement, dated 22.4.2006 and three Supplementary Memoranda of Agreements. For the sake of specificity, it is to be mentioned that Arbitration Agreement between parties is in the form of Clause 11 in the Memorandum of Agreement,