Vibhu Bakhru JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the 'A&C Act') challenging the Arbitral Award dated 07.09.2019 (hereinafter 'the impugned award'). In terms of the impugned award, the claims made by the petitioner were rejected as barred by limitation. The petitioner claims that the said view is ex facie erroneous and the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality on the face of the record.
Factual Matrix
2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in manufacturing and dealing with Solar Photovoltaic Power Sources and other renewable energy technologies.
3. On 20.12.1994, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India had invited tenders [Tender Enquiry No. 11-12/94-MMT (RN)] for taking on lease 6380 numbers of Solar Photovoltaic Power Sources (SPPS). The respondent is a government company and is a successor of the Department of Telecommunications.
4. The petitioner submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid notice for supplying the SPPS. The petitioner's bid was accepted and, on 20.10.1995, the respondent issued an Advance Purchase Order for the SPPS with the basic invoice price of ` 11,25,24,060/- (Rupees Eleven crores, twenty five lacs, twenty four thousand and sixty). The SPPS were required to be provided in two packages - Package A and Package B. Under Package A, the petitioner was required to supply 1600 numbers of SPPS for Andhra Pradesh Circle; 750 numbers of SPPS for Maharashtra Circle; and 840 numbers of SPPS for Rajasthan Circle. The unit price for such supply was fixed at ` 18,202/- per unit. The petitioner was required to supply a similar quantity of SPPS to the three circles under Package B as well, albeit at the unit price of ` 17,072/-.
5. Thereafter, on 20.11.1995, the parties entered into a Lease Agreement (hereinafter the 'Lease Agreement') whereby the respondent agreed to lease the SPPS (which was referred to as 'Equipment') from the petitioner. In terms of the Lease Agreement, the petitioner was to supply the agreed number of SPPS as a package within a period of three months from the date of the said agreement.
6. In terms of the Lease Agreement, it was agreed that the term of the lease was for fixed period of five years to be computed from the end of the three months period within which the entire delivery of the SPPS was required to be made at the sites. The respondent agreed to pay the quarterly lease rentals (hereinafter referred to as 'QLR') at the rate of ` 59.5 per ` 1000 of the basic invoice value. The QLR was required to be paid within seven days after the completion of each quarter. It was also agreed that the QLRs would be variable and linked to the prime lending rate of the State Bank of India (SBI). The aforesaid QLRs were pegged at the then prevailing prime lending rate of 15.5% per annum. It was agreed that for every 1% increase or decrease in the prime lending rate of SBI, the QLR would be correspondingly increased or decreased at the rate of ` 1.5 per ` 1000 of the basic invoice value.
7. It was agreed that the ownership of the SPPS would continue to vest with the petitioner but the respondent shall have the right to retain the possession of the SPPS for the full term of the lease period.
8. It was agreed that upon completion of the lease term, the respondent would make a one-time payment to the Lessor (the petitioner) as tra........