( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioner challenges the award made by the learned Arbitrator. By the award the learned Arbitrator allowed the claim made by the respondent/claimant and rejected the counter-claim that was made by the petitioner. The respondent is the original claimant. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement whereby the respondent had agreed to supply and the petitioner had agreed to buy steaming Coal. The quantity to be supplied was mentioned in clause 4 of the agreement. In addition to the five shipments agreed to be supplied, there was an option cargo (sixth shipment), which was to be confirmed by the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was for demurrage against the petitioner in the sum of US $ 2,45,337. 92 incurred by the vessel hired by the respondent under the contract between the parties. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties the respondent shipped to the petitioner cargo in five shipments and they were discharged at the port nominated by the petitioner. According to the respondent in each of the shipments, since the vessel went on demurrage the respondent prepared laytime calculation based on the statement of fact and submitted the same to the petitioner along with other documents and commercial invoices for demurrage claim. Under the terms of the contract the demurrage or despatch claim had to be settled within 60 days of the submission of laytime statement with supporting documents and if there was any disagreement towards laytime statement that had to be raised by the other party within 30 days after such statement is transmitted and received and if no such dispute is raised, then the statement is considered as having been accepted as correct. The petitioner disputed its liability to pay any demurrage to the respondent. According to the petitioner no demurrage was payable because according to the petitioner right of the respondent to receive the amount of demurrage was only in the form of indemnity and that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had made payment of any demurrage to the vessel owner. According to the petitioner, unless the respondent establishes that it had paid demurrage to the vessel owner, the petitioner was not liable to pay any demurrage.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, counter-claims were made. The counter claim which was in the amount of US $ 4,78,619. 62 relates to alleged loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the respondent's breach of contract in failing and neglecting to supply option cargo under the terms and conditions of the contract. According to the petitioner, though it had complied with the requirements of the contract the respondent did not supply the option cargo, which resulted in loss to the petitioner.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that on a true and proper interpretation of Clause 10 (v), there is only one interpretation possible for the following reasons : the respondent's witness in evidence in chief has expressly stated as under :-

"it was agreed and understood between the parties that the demurrage that would be payable would be demurrage actually paid by the Claimant to the vessel owner. "there is no cross-examination on the above aspect by the respondent and the respondent has also not let contrary evidence on this aspect. The respondent, by its letter dated 22nd November, 2000 forwarded a copy of the Contract of Afrieghtment (COA) to the petitioner and further stated that "with the submission of the above COA we believe that a requisite documents are in your possession for remittance of the demurrage. " it is evident from the above letter that the respondent itself admits that the coa is a relevant document in relation to the seller's (respondent's) claim for damage against the purchaser (petitioner ). During the course of rejoinder/submissions before the learned Arbitrator, it was the case of the respondent itself that the demurrage clause in the contract provided only a