ORDER :

M. Sundar, J.

1. Over one decade and one year ago or in other words more than 11 years ago, to be precise on 13.04.2009 captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) was presented in this Court. 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity/convenience and captioned OP is an application under Section 34 of A and C Act.

2. Arbitral award, which is sought to be set aside in instant OP is dated 17.01.2009 (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience) and the impugned award was made by a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake brevity). To be noted, impugned award is a unanimous award, but two Arbitrators have given additional reasons.

3. 11 years is a long time in one tier of litigation and in this sense of the matter, case on hand is vintage and can even be described as ancient owing to arbitration being one of the important pillars of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism with emphasis on timelines.

4. Applications under Section 34 of A and C Act are neither appeals nor revisions. Such applications are not even those which entail a full-fledged judicial review, but are mere challenges to arbitral awards within the 8 slots adumbrated in sub-section (2) of Section 34 of A and C Act and the juristic doctrines culled out by Courts/facets elucidated by Court qua those 8 slots. Besides this, going by Fiza Developers principle, being the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited Vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796, which was reiterated in Emkay Global case [Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd., v. Girdhar Sondhi reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49] as a step in the right direction and further reiterated very recently in Canara Nidhi Limited case [M/S. Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala], a one issue summary procedure has to be adopted for disposal of case on hand. To be noted, Fiza Developers principle also lays down that Section 34 proceedings are one issue proceedings meaning the presentation of Section 34 (on one or more slots adumbrated thereunder) is to be construed as a issue by itself.

5. Instant case being a mere challenge to an arbitral award within the limited legal perimeter, contours, confines of Section 34 of A and C Act, legal landscape being nanoscopic(sic) and procedure being summary, factual matrix in a nutshell or in other words short facts shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order, will suffice. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeds to set out factual matrix in a nutshell.

6. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that there is an agreement between Chennai Port (to be noted, Chennai Port which is petitioner before this Court is respondent before AT) and one X-press Container Line (UK) Ltd., (Claimant before AT and contesting First respondent before this Court) being 'an agreement dated 18.01.1995 captioned Agreement for Berth Reservation' (hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that said contract is for reservation of 200 meters of berth length at West Quays I and II in Dr. Ambedkar Dock; that period of said contract was originally from 18.01.1995 to 24.01.1997 with first extension upto 24.12.1997 and second extension upto 31.03.1998; that in the said contract there was a provision for guaranteed throughput berth hire charges, penal wharfage charges etc., besides several other covenants; for the sake of convenience and clarity, petitioner before this Court/respondent before AT shall be referred to as 'Chennai Port' and contesting first respondent before this Court/claimant before AT shall be referred to as 'Licensee'; that Article X of said contract is an arbitration clause, the same serves as arbitration agreement between Chennai Port and Licensee (arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act); that