JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - Steel Authority of India Limited (hereafter 'SAIL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 02.11.2020 (hereafter 'the impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three arbitrators [Justice (Retd.) V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, Sh. R.P. Singh, Director (HR & Legal), IIFCO and Justice (Retd.) Madan B. Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Presiding Arbitrator].

2. The respondent (hereafter 'JOPL') is a company incorporated in Singapore and was the claimant before Arbitral Tribunal. SAIL is a Public Sector Enterprise, inter alia, engaged in manufacture of steel. The arbitration between the parties was an international commercial arbitration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the A&C Act. It was conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and in accordance with its Rules.

3. Jopl is engaged in the business of maritime logistics including vessel operations and chartering.

4. The disputes between the parties arose in connection with a Contract of Affreightment dated 28.06.2017 (hereafter referred to as 'the CoA'). In terms of the CoA, the parties had agreed that JOPL would load, carry and discharge a cargo of 13,50,000 metric tons (25% more or less at the option of SAIL) of limestone in lots of 50,000 metric tons (5% more or less at the option of SAIL) on terms and conditions as stipulated. The cargo was to be loaded at Mina Saqr Port in Ras Al Khaimah, UAE and was discharged at the ports of Vishakhapatnam/Gangavarnam/Paradip/Haldia. In terms of Clause 47 of the CoA, it was agreed that the freight payable to JOPL would be USD 8.55 per metric ton on FIOT basis in case of discharge at the port of Vishakhapatnam, Gangavarnam or Paradip and further, USD 1.75 per metric ton extra would be charged if the cargo was required to be discharged at two ports. In terms of Clause 48 of the CoA, 90% of the freight payment was required to be made initially on the Bill(s) of Lading less 2% in lieu of weighment, within a period of seven working days of the vessel and cargo's safe arrival at the first or sole port of discharge. The balance 10% of the freight together with the demurrage, or less dispatch, if any, was payable within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of completion of the discharge on submission of certain documents specified therein.

5. There is no substantial dispute as to the freight and charges payable by SAIL to JOPL. There is a minor difference of USD 6,045.12 between the amounts as claimed by JOPL and the aggregate of amounts acknowledged by SAIL as withheld from the freight/ demurrages payable to JOPL. According to JOPL, USD 444,741.79 was due and payable by SAIL in respect of the cargo transported and discharged in terms of the CoA. However, according to SAIL, it has withheld only a sum of USD 438,696.64 being the balance amount payable to JOPL. The Arbitral Tribunal had noted that JOPL did not press its claim for the amount of USD 6,045.12 and sought recovery of the amount as admittedly withheld by SAIL.

6. After the parties had entered into a CoA on 28.06.2017, SAIL entered into a contract for supply of limestone with one Stevin Rock (the Supplier) on 29.07.2017. JOPL transported the limestone supplied by the Supplier to SAIL.

7. Sail made its first declaration for laycan and called upon JOPL to nominate a vessel on 27.09.2017

8. Essentially, the controversy amongst the parties relates to the interpretation of Clause 74 of the CoA, which provided an option to SAIL to suspend shipment for a holiday period not exceeding two months and also to extend deliveries for a period of three months. In terms of Clause 74, the shipments were likely to commence in July 2017 and be completed within twelve months subject to a shipment holiday (limited to a maximum of two months) and ex