JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "Act,1996") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned Majority Award dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Arbitrators being Arbitration Case No. 1770 of 2010 titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. M/s Aust Grain Exports Pty. Ltd. before the Indian Council of Arbitration to the extent Claim 1 and Claim 2 of the Petitioner were disallowed by the Tribunal and also to set aside impugned Majority Award dated 05.03.2021 whereby the Counter Claims 1 and 3 of the Respondent were allowed;

And pass such other and further orders as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court."

2. The petitioner had floated a tender for the supply of goods/import of Yellow Peas on a FOB/C&FFO basis with the quantity being 35,000 MTs.(+/- 10%) and the shipment period for the said goods was September-October 2009. The respondent participated in the tender and the respondent's bid was found lowest.

3. The bid of the respondent was accepted vide Letter of Intent dated 16th April 2009 and a Contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 16th April 2009 whereby, terms and conditions for the supply of goods were stipulated between the parties.

4. The petitioner vide an email dated 07th September 2009, enquired from the respondent as to when the consignment would be shipped. In reply to the said letter, vide response dated 08th October 2009, the respondent informed the petitioner that MV Geeta was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. The respondents informed vide email dated 16th October 2009, that another vessel, MV Star Lily had been nominated for the said consignment and it will be at load port between 29th October 2009 to 31st November 2009.

5. On 28th October 2009, the respondent stated that the vessel was in transit, but due to bad weather, the vessel would arrive around 05th November 2009. The respondent again vide email dated 04th November 2009, informed that the vessel would start loading on 08/09th November 2009 thus, requested an extension by 15th November 2009, the petitioner extended the same vide email dated 05th November 2009. The respondent requested for another extension up to 30th November 2009 vide email dated 09th November 2009 which was accepted by the petitioner subject to levying applicable penalties. The respondent vide email dated 10th November 2009 raised an objection to the penalty on the ground of Act of God.

6. The petitioner issued an email on 20th November 2009, seeking the immediate status of the vessel, in reply to the said letter vide response dated 23rd November 2009, the respondent stated that after the delay due to weather and port congestion, the vessel had started loading.

7. The consignment was finally shipped on 27th November 2009 and issued a commercial invoice on the same date itself which showed the quantity of goods shipped as per the contract. Consequently, the goods arrived on 01st January 2010.

8. The petitioner vide email dated 14th December 2009 asked the respondent to compensate for the delayed shipment in terms of Clause 20 of the Contract. The respondent vide email dated 15th December 2009 invoked the force majeure clause mentioning the reason behind the delay in payment and requested petitioners to make payments