1. This Execution Petition is filed under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with provisions of Section 2(1)(c), 7 and 10(i) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016) to recover a sum of US $ 2,143,168 equivalent to INR 14,27,75,708.87ps pursuant to an Arbitral Award passed in London on 05.04.2016 by a Three-Member Arbitration Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) after adjudicating the dispute between the parties.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The petitioner herein is a Company incorporated in Switzerland and is engaged in the business of trading in fertilizers.

3. The respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Hyderabad, India, which is also engaged in the business of trading in fertilizers.

4. The petitioner and respondent entered into a contract ‘KTS201310338’ dt.30-4-2013 whereby the petitioner agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to by 50,000 Metric Tonnes (M.T.) of Di Ammonium Phosphate (for short, ‘D.A.P.’) (later split into two contracts) with a shipping tolerance of ±10% at the option of the petitioner at a price of US $ 515 per M.T. on C.F.R. basis. The value of this contract is US $ 25.75 Million equivalent to Rs.167.37 crores. It provided that payment was to be by irrevocable confirmed Letter of Credit (for short ‘LC’) payment at sight and the LC was to be established by State Bank of India or another bank acceptable to sellers.

5. Subsequently, on 28.05.2013, the above contract was split into two contracts (KTS201310338.1 and KTS201310338.2) of 25,000 M.T. each at the option of the petitioner. All other terms and conditions including the price which was US $ 515 M.T. remained the same. In this split contract the mode of payment was by an irrevocable LC established by State Bank of India or any Bank acceptable to petitioner. It provided that the governing Law was to be English Law and in the event of disputes, the arbitration was to be held in London under the L.C.I.A. Rules by a panel of three arbitrators who shall be commercial men.

6. After the contracts were signed, petitioner nominated a vessel ‘MV Bulk Leo’ with a capacity of 50,000 M.T. The respondent however requested for extension of the shipping date on the ground that they were waiting for payment of a Government subsidy, and in the meantime was not in a good enough financial condition to open the required LCs. So the petitioner agreed to the respondent’s request.

7. Later parties entered into four different amendments by extending the shipping dates from time to time as mentioned below.

8. According to petitioner, these amendments were pursuant to respondent’s request due to different reasons.

9. Under the Amendment No.1, reflecting the delayed shipping date until 2nd half of June, 2013 the petitioner nominated a vessel ‘MVAoyama’ of capacity 50,000 M.T. on 12.6.2013 and requested the respondent for opening of the L.C.

10. This was not acted upon in view of the respondent’s request on12-6-2013 to delay the shipping date until July, 2013 citing the non receipt of anticipated government subsidy as well as falling value of the Indian Rupee vis-a-vis the US $. This was agreed to by the petitioner.

11. On 20.6.2013, petitioner again nominated a vessel ‘MV Harrier’ with Laycan 4/10 July, 2013, but the respondent again requested for extension of the shipping date stating that their Banker was refusing to open the LCs.

12. In view of the said request, the parties entered into Amendment No.2 on 20.6.2013 reflecting the revised shipping dates pushing them back to 25/30 July, 2013 , but all other terms of contract remained the same. Though the above vessel’s nomination was accepted by respondent on 21.6.2013, respondent sought reduction in price, credit/usance to the maximum possible. Petitioner at that time refused to reduce the price, but offered to modify the payment clause allowing the LCs to be paid 60