J U D G M E N T

1. The present Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹1 A&C Act, being OMP (COMM) 119/2026 filed by Telecommunications Consultants India Limited²2 TCIL and OMP (COMM) 555/2025 filed by Frans Global Infotech Private Limited³3 Frans, arise out of a common Arbitral Award dated 24.09.2025⁴4 Impugned Award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal⁵5 AT, comprising a Sole Arbitrator, in disputes inter se the parties.

2. It is noted that Frans was the Claimant before the learned AT, whereas, TCIL was the Respondent.

3. By way of OMP (COMM) 119/2026, TCIL has laid a challenge to the Impugned Award insofar as it allows certain claims in favour of Frans and rejects the counter-claims preferred by TCIL.

4. Conversely, by way of OMP (COMM) 555/2025, Frans has assailed the Impugned Award to the extent that its Claim Nos. 1, 2 and 6 have been rejected, pertaining to damages on account of termination of the Purchase Order, payment under invoices dated 14.04.2023 and 01.05.2023, and damages for loss of reputation arising from the blacklisting by TCIL, along with consequential claim for interest.

5. Since both petitions emanate from the same arbitral proceedings and call into question different parts of the same award, involving overlapping factual and legal issues, they were heard together and are being considered by this common judgment.

BRIEF FACTS:

6. The disputes between the parties arise out of a tender for the supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance of the Horizontal Extension of State Wide Area Network.

7. A Request for Proposal dated 05.12.2022 was issued by the Directorate of Information Technology⁶6 DIT, Government of Tripura, for the execution of the said project. In pursuance thereof, TCIL issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 07.03.2023 for the selection of an implementing agency.

8. Subsequently, TCIL issued a corrigendum dated 15.03.2023, clarifying that the timeline for commencement of the work order would be reckoned from 06.03.2023.

9. Frans participated in the tender process, and its bid was accepted. A Letter of Intent dated 24.03.2023 was issued in its favour, which was accepted on 27.03.2023.

10. Thereafter, a Purchase Order dated 28.04.2023⁷7 Purchase Order was issued for the execution of the project. And in terms of Clause 3.2 of the Special Conditions of Contract⁸8 SCC, Frans also furnished a Performance Bank Guarantee dated 13.04.2023⁹9 PBG in favour of TCIL for an amount of ₹25,75,512/-, valid for 42 months, which was submitted electronically on 13.04.2023 and physically on 17.04.2023.

11. The contractual framework envisages the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of equipment within stipulated timelines, along with maintenance obligations. The timelines for delivery and execution formed a central component of the contractual obligations between the parties.

12. During the execution of the project, disputes arose between the parties with respect to timelines, placement of purchase orders, and delivery of equipment. In this context, TCIL issued a communication dated 11.05.2023 raising concerns of delay, followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023¹⁰10 Show Cause Notice, which was responded to by Frans disputing the allegations.

13. Thereafter, TCIL terminated the Purchase Order vide termination notice dated 09.06.2023 and simultaneously imposed a ban on Frans from participating in its future tenders for a period of two years.

14. Following that, Frans approached this Court for the appointment of an arbitrator by filing ARB. P. 769/2023, wherein, vide Order dated 06.11.2023, a Sole Arbitrator came to be appointed.

15. Before the learned AT, Frans raised claims inter alia on account of alleged wrongful termination, non-payment of invoices, encashment of the PBG, damages and challenge to blacklisting. TCIL contested the claims and also raised counter-claims towards penalty, risk purchase costs and other losses.

16. On the basis of pleading