An arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the matters that are submitted to it for arbitration and that an arbitrator cannot exceed his or her jurisdiction by deciding matters that are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J. - The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SAIL') had preferred the instant application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators wherein the Presiding Arbitrator and one Ld. Arbitrator have passed minority award in favour of the respondent namely Vizag Seaprot Pvt Ltd. (herein after referred to as 'VSPL') and one of the Arbitrator has passed separate minority Award and rejected the claim made by the respondent.

2. On 06.05.2008, a Short Term Agreement (herein after referred as 'STA') was entered between the petitioner and the respondent for a period of three years with the further extension of one year 'for providing integrated terminal services at multipurpose berth EQ-8 in the northern arm of inner harbor at Visakhapatnam Port for handling coking coal and metallurgical coke in bulk at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh'.

3. The contract was in force till 05.05.2012 and thereafter a fresh agreement was executed from 11.05.2012 onwards with extension till 31.03.2014. The dispute was arose between the parties on 20.12.2010 when the respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner for payment of demurrage charges on cargo volumes exceeding free period which the petitioner has denied for payment on the ground that the payment of demurrage charges is not provided under the contract.

4. Mr. Pardip Ghosh, Ld. Senior Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was importing cooking coal in Panamax size vessels through Vizag Port and the respondent was appointed to handle the imported cargo at Vizag port in terms and conditions contained in the agreement and the respondent was to provide Integrated Terminal Services which includes:

a. Unloading of the cargo from the vessel by shore handling system.

b. Transportation of the cargo from the hook point to stock pile area and reclaiming cargo from stockpile with shore handling system.

c. Mechanized loading of cargo onto railway wagons/racks for onward transportation to the steel plants of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Ghosh Submits that at the beginning the petitioner made an application before the Tribunal that the respondent in its statement of claim has referred to Tariff Authority for Major Ports (herein after referred as 'TAMP') and the dispute should be adjudicated by the TAMP but the respondents have taken a stand that agreement between the parties is a private agreement and TAMP has no manner of application. Accordingly the Arbitral Tribunal held that it is private agreement between the parties and TAMP Rules and Regulations are not applicable.

6. Mr. Ghosh submits that demurrage under Major Port Trust Act, 1963, is imposed because importer cannot use port premises as storage space but the majority members failed to consider that the respondent has confirmed in the agreement in clause 3.3 that 40,500 Sq. Mtrs of area would be utilized for handling cargo and this area is exclusively dedicated to stack imported cargo by the respondent. It is further contended that since the area of 40500 sq.mtrs was leased out to the respondent by the Vizag Port Trust, according to TAMP notification no demurrage can be claimed. Under Integrated Terminal Services Charges (herein after referred as ITSC) the respondent was charging Rs. 4733.40 per hundred sq.mtrs per year.

7. Mr. Ghosh further submits that as per clause 8.0 of the agreement, parties have agreed to review the actual quantity of cargo made available to the respondent after first six months of the operation and after which term would be review jointly and if required terms and conditions will be further revised but in the instant case review meeting was held on 09.10.2009 but in the said review meeting the respondent did not mentioned with regard to levy of demurrage under clause 5.12.

8. Mr. Ghosh submits that clause 5.12 has two parts (i) stacking of cargo of volume 60,000MT with additio