Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Preface :

Let me preface this judgment with two aspects, which crossed my mind during the course of arguments advanced before me.

1.1. First, is there a perfect answer to every legal issue, which comes before the Court.

1.2. Second, will the Court try and reduce the rigours of obligations reflected in a commercial contract, executed between two entities, having equal bargaining power.

2. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, I would be the first one to confess, that there is no perfect answer to every legal problem, which is why, in an adversarial system, one party goes back, feeling dissatisfied.

2.1. A quietus is put to litigation, only because of a hierarchical system that the Courts maintain. As Judges we are trained to be interventionist. We attempt to set right, in a manner of speech, that slightly crooked picture hanging on the wall, till we reach, what according to us, is a just solution.

2.2. Whether such an approach is right or wrong, is often governed, both by the jurisdiction that a Judge sits in and the personal disposition as well as predilection of a person exercising that jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have more width and amplitude than others. Restraints are often self imposed.

3. Arbitration is one such jurisdiction, where the temptation for a judge to straighten that proverbial crooked picture is, immense.

3.1. Repeatedly, the interventionist in the Judge comes to fore, however, in my view and experience the rule, which should play out, is that, once, parties have made their bed, they should be made to sleep on it. Any other approach is a recipe for docket clogging and is often seen to give succour to critics, and perhaps, rightly, that the alternate dispute resolution system is a failing proposition.

3.2. Having said so, the exception to this approach should be : that obvious case of fraud, compromised integrity of arbitrators and plainly erroneous awards, which go against the stated position of law and, hence, border on perversity and/or, those awards, which go against public policy.

4. The second aspect, which caught my attention in this case and, in a sense, is interlinked with the first, was the tenacity and, perhaps, the remorselessness, with which, the petitioner was seeking to enforce the award.

4.1. At first blush, I came to believe that the petitioner was acting in manner which ran close to the conduct of the well known Shakespearean character, Shylock. However, on a closer examination of the case and on a sober reflection, I have come to the conclusion, as my discussion hereafter would reveal, that the, petitioner was much harried and frustrated by the respondent at every step of the case.

Background :

5. These are two petitions filed, essentially, under Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, 'the 1996 Act') by an entity going by the name : Interbulk Trading SA (hereafter referred to as "Interbulk").

5.1. Via these petitions, Interbulk, essentially, seeks enforcement of two awards dated 14.01.2013 and 12.04.2013.

5.2. The first award is a final award, concerning the merits of the dispute obtaining between the Interbulk and the respondent, i.e., Adam and Coal Resources Private Limited (hereafter referred to as "Adam Coal"), while the second award is a supplementary award, whereby, costs are awarded in favour of Interbulk by the learned Arbitrator.

5.3. Based on the first award, Interbulk seeks a direction qua Adam Coal for payment of USD329,273.40. Insofar as the second award is concerned, once again, Interbulk seeks a direction qua Adam Coal for payment of USD 37,938.12, albeit, towards costs.

6. Upon notice being issued in the captioned petitions, Adam Coal has filed its replies. The replies filed are in the nature of objections taken under Section 48 of the 1996 Act.

7. Pertinently, the seat of arbitration was Singapore and the proceedings were governed by Singaporean Law and the rules formulated by the Singapore International Arbitration Ce