ORDER :

In an Arbitration, initiated in London, by the respondent herein, an award dated 05.11.2012, has been passed against the Applicant herein and one M/s SETIT International Import Export PLC, jointly and severally, for payment of a sum of Rs.862,935 U.S dollars together with interest at 451,060 dollars at 5.5% per annum compounded at three monthly rests from 06.06.2012 until date of payment and interest at the same rate to be paid on U.S dollars 411,877 from the date of award until payment.

2. The Respondent, which is a ship owning company, had invoked Arbitration, in London, by relying upon the following facts:

a) By way of a fixture note, dated 13.05.2012, the Charterer, M/s. Marina Shipping and Trading Pte Ltd chartered the Vessel M.V. Omar B, owned by the Respondent for performing a voyage from Kakinada port to Massawa in Eritrea. The fixture note was in the form of GENCON (1994 edition).

b) The vessel, Omar B, in pursuance of the said fixture note, reached Kakinada port and loaded the Cargo on 29.05.2012. On the same day, a Bill of Lading dated 29.05.2012 was signed by the agents of the Charterer, Lotus Marine Services Private Limited. The Bill of Lading is also shown as signed for and on behalf of the master of the vessel. The Bill of Lading stated that the shipper is the Applicant herein and the consignee was one SETIT International Import-Export Plc. The Bill of Lading also stated that freight of U.S dollars 472,950 had been prepaid. The Bill of Lading had five standard conditions of carriage printed on the reverse side. Clause-I which is relevant, stated that:

i) All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as over leaf, including the Law and the Arbitration clause, are herewith incorporated.

c) The fixture note of 13.05.2012, was treated as the Charter Party, mentioned in the Bill of Lading and it was taken that the Bill of Lading would be governed by English Law and the arbitration, in the event of disputes, would be in London.

d) The Respondent claimed that the freight of 449,795 dollars, overage premium of 11,050 dollars and demurrage amounting 411,708.33 dollars had remained unpaid. As these amounts were not paid, the Respondent commenced arbitration against Marina, the Applicant herein and SETIT International Import and Export Plc.

3. The Arbitrator, on the basis of the Bill of Lading, commenced arbitration and directed notice to be served on the Applicant herein and M/s SETIT International Import Export PLC. After, recording the fact that, notices of appointment of the Arbitrator and notices of the Arbitral proceedings had been served on the Applicant herein, the Arbitrator had passed an award, in favour of the Respondent, awarding a sum of Rs.862,935 U.S dollars together with interest at 451,060 dollars at 5.5% per annum compounded at three monthly rests from 06.06.2012 until date of payment and interest at the same rate to be paid on U.S dollars 411,877 from the date of award until payment. The said amounts being payable, jointly and severally, by the Applicant herein and M/s SETIT International Import Export PLC.

4. The Arbitrator had held that, the fixture note dated 13.05.2012, had stipulated that in the event of dispute, arbitration would be in London as per English Law and that this clause was incorporated into the bill of lading dated 29.05.2012. The arbitrator held that the Applicant and Setit International are both parties to the Bill of Lading and would be liable for clearing the liabilities claimed by the Respondent.

5. There is one other aspect which needs to be noticed. The arbitrator observed that the date of the Charter Party dated 12.05.2012, mentioned in the Bill of Lading should be taken to be the fixture note dated 13.05.2012 as there was a violation in the date. The arbitrator also took the view that the fixture was probably concluded on 12.05.2012 and the terms were merely confirmed the next date in the fixture note dated 13.05.2012.

6. After the said award had