VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

This appeal challenges the impugned order dated 25.10.2005 of the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the objections filed by the appellant to the award dated 31.01.2002.

2. By the award, the respondent was held entitled to an amount of USD 52,913.97 being the balance of the freight charges payable by the appellant to the respondent with respect to a charter party agreement entered into between the parties. The award also granted interest at international lending rates (LIBOR) of 7% from the date of reference till the date of payment.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, there were principally four objections which were raised by the appellant to the award:-

.(i) that the counter-claim filed by the appellant has been wrongly dismissed as time barred and not permitting adjustment for the short delivery of goods,

.(ii) the respondent ought not to have been granted at least the freight charges on said short delivery of goods,

(iii) the rate of interest granted until the award is on the higher side,

(iv) the award should have been passed in rupees and not in dollars because there has been appreciation of value of dollars as against the Indian rupee.

4. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we find that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge while upholding the award and dismissing the objections to the same are completely justified. So far as the issue with regard to the interest is concerned, we feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same requires certain modifications as stated hereinafter.

5. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge on all the three aspects of the dis-entitlement of the appellant for adjustment of its claim of short delivery on account of the same being barred by limitation, entitlement of the respondent to claim freight charges for short delivery and entitlement of the respondent to claim the award in dollars, we find, is detailed and correct, and we would do no better if we would simply adopt the said reasoning and reproduce the relevant portions of the impugned judgment.

.6. On the issue with regard to the claim to the short delivery being barred by limitation, the learned Single Judge has referred to Clause-3, para-6 of Article III of the schedule to the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 and as per which provision, the claim of short delivery has necessarily to be filed within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. Applying the relevant provision of law, the learned Single Judge has affirmed the finding in the award that admittedly the claim was not brought within one year as required under law. On the related aspect of the contention of the appellant that even if, a claim with respect to short delivery is time barred, yet, the appellant was entitled to adjust or make a counter-claim or at least a defence on such basis has also been rightly rejected by learned Single Judge by reference to the Supreme Court judgment in The East and West Steamship Company Vs. S.K.Ramalingam Chettiar: 1960 SCR (3) 820, which holds that not only the remedy is extinguished after the limitation expires but the right itself is extinguished.

.Thus, we see no reason to differ with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and portion that the appellant was not entitled to make a claim with respect to short delivery of the goods as alleged by it.

.7. As regards the contention of the appellant that the respondent should not have been allowed the freight charges for the short delivery, the learned Single Judge in exhaustive reasoning from paras 11 to 17 of the judgment has considered the respective documents and the evidence which were considered for passing of the award and has thereafter arrived at the following finding in para 17 with which we agree and which reads as under:- “ In my considered view the objection of the respondent cannot be accepted for two reasons: The first is that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document