An arbitral award must state reasons unless agreed otherwise; failure to include reasoning in the final award does not invalidate previous individual arbitrators' judgments, affirming limited grounds for judicial intervention.

1. This appeal has been filed under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( here - in - after referred to as the "Act of 1996") assailing the judgment and order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar in Misc Arb Case No.26 of 2005, setting aside the arbitral award dated 21.11.2004.

2. The basic facts are not in dispute in this case. The facts essential for disposal of this appeal, shorn of un - necessary details, are that the respondent / ONGC had floated an NIT on 06.02.1995 inviting offers for carrying out Horizontal Drain Hole Drilling in respect of 4 (four) of its designated oil wells situated in the Upper Assam. In response to the NIT dated 06.02.1995, M/S Beckfield Drilling Services, USA, a company incorporated in the United States of America, had made its offer on 12.03.1995 which was accepted by the respondent on 23.05.1995. On 25.07.1995, a Letter of Intent (LoI) was issued in favour of M/S Beckfield Drilling Services, USA. However, by the letter dated 30.07.1995, while acknowledging the acceptance of the LoI, M/S Beckfield Drilling Services, USA had made a request to the respondent for assignment of the contract in favour of its Joint Venture (JV) partner in India viz. M/S G & T Beckfield Drilling Services (Pvt.) Ltd. i.e. the appellant here - in. On 07.08.1995, the Government of India had conveyed its approval with regard to the collaboration between Beckfield, USA and the appellant, whereafter, by the communication dated 20.10.1995, the respondent had also accepted the request for assignment of the LoI in favour of the appellant. On 17.08.1996, a contract agreement was signed by and in between the respondent on one hand and M/s Beckfield Drilling Services, USA as well as the representatives of the appellant on the other hand. Thereafter, execution of the work commenced with effect from 17.08.1996 with due approval from the respondent. However, on 14.03.1997, the respondent had issued a notice of termination of contract giving 15 days' notice to the appellant. In the meantime, on 07.10.1996, the appellant had raised its first invoice demanding payment for the work already executed by it followed by another 9 (nine) invoices involving a total amount of $11,85,939.98 (U.S. Dollar).It appears that the respondent had made payment in respect of the first 4 (four) invoices raised by the appellant for a sum of $ 4,71,754.19 (US Dollar) but it had refused to make payment in respect of the remaining 6 (six) invoices. When the legal notice dated 10.04.1998 sent on behalf of the appellant demanding payment in respect of the balance amount was not responded to nor any payment made by to the appellant, a dispute had arisen between the parties. As such, by the legal notice dated 06.06.1998, the appellant had invoked the arbitration clause seeking adjudication of its claim by an arbitral tribunal and accordingly appointed Hon'ble Justice K.N.Saikia, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India( here - in - after referred to as the First Arbitrator for the sake of convenience ) as its arbitrator under clause 25 of the agreement dated 07.08.1995 and called upon the respondent to appoint its arbitrator. On 18.08.1998, the respondent had appointed Hon'ble Justice M.M.Dutt, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (here - in - after referred to as the Second Arbitrator for the sake of convenience) to act as an arbitrator on its behalf. Both the arbitrators had thereafter, appointed Hon'ble Justice A.N.Sen, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (here - in - after referred to as the Presiding Arbitrator) to act as the Presiding Arbitrator. The first sitting of the arbit