The main legal point established is that the arbitrator's decision must be based on a proper application of mind and consideration of relevant contractual clauses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 24.02.2023 bearing Arbitration Case No.1 of 2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator (Shri.M.V.Swaroop) in its entirety.)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short “the Act”) challenging the impugned arbitral award dated 24.02.2023 passed in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is a clearing and forwarding agent. The respondent is an importer. The petitioner had imported cargo from Vietnam for delivery at the port of Chennai. The petitioner''s agent at Hai Phong Port, Vietnam issued the House Bill of Lading dated 11.03.2020 disclosing the respondent as the consignee of the cargo. Since the cargo which arrived at Chennai port was detained by the customs authorities, there was a delay in the delivery of the cargo to the respondent. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent, the respondent has also taken delivery of the cargo after the issuance of delivery order by the petitioner. Since there was a delay, M/s.COSCO-the ocean liner had demanded demurrage. Since the cargo was lying in the CFS (container freight station) for quite some time, in view of the claim made by M/s.COSCO against the respondent, the respondent initiated arbitration in accordance with the clauses contained in the House Bill of Lading dated 11.03.2020 issued by the petitioner to the respondent.

3. Since there was no consensus with regard to the arbitration, the respondent had filed an application under Section 11 of the Act seeking for appointment of an arbitrator. By orders of this Court, a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Before the arbitrator, the petitioner had raised the following grounds:-

(a) They have questioned the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties;

(b) They have categorically stated that they are not an agent of M/s.COSCO and therefore, they are not liable to compensate the respondent for demurrage claim made by M/s.COSCO.

4. However, as seen from the impugned arbitral award, the sole arbitrator appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the Act, has rejected the contentions of the petitioner by holding that in case the petitioner fails to deliver the cargo to the respondent, the petitioner may be called upon to pay the value of the goods amounting to Rs.14,97,850/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner has challenged the impugned arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the House Bill of Lading dated 11.03.2020 issued by the agent of the petitioner at Vietnam, namely, M/s.STT Logistics Company Limited. In particular, he drew the attention of the Court to Clause 2 of the reverse side of the Bill of Lading dated 11.03.2020 and would submit that the clauses contained in the reverse side of the Bill of Lading has no applicability to the present contract. According to him, only in case where two or more modes of transport from the place of acceptance of the goods in India to a place of delivery of goods outside India exists, the clauses found in the reverse side of the Bill of Lading are applicable. According to him, the present dispute arises out of a shipment made from Vietnam for delivery at Chennai by a single mode of transport, namely, “by sea” and therefore, the clauses found in the reverse side of the Bill of Lading has no applicability. The reverse side of the Bill of Lading contains an arbitration clause, which is found at Clause 25. According to the petitioner, the arbitration clause is not applicable due to the reasons stated supra. 6. He would also submit that M/s.COSCO is not an agent of the petitioner. However, according to him, under the impugned