A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot interfere with an arbitral award unless the findings are perverse. A tribunal's interpretation that general correspondence does not constitute an acknowledgment of liability for a previously repudiated claim is a plausible view that precludes judicial substitution.

ORAL JUDGEMENT :

Context and Factual Background:

1. This is a Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) challenging an Award dated February 5, 2018 passed by a Learned Arbitral Tribunal (“Impugned Award”). The Impugned Award is essentially a majority award, with one of three arbitrators dissenting.

2. The short question that would be dispositive of this Petition would be whether the claim presented by the Petitioner, National Iranian Tanker Company (“NITC”) before the Learned Arbitral Tribunal against the Respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (“BPCL”), had been barred by limitation.

3. The claims relate to demurrage, said to have been suffered and charged by NITC on BPCL in respect of a Time Charterparty relating to a vessel MT Sima (“Vessel”), which was chartered by BPCL on July 5, 2010. The Vessel was loaded at Keoje Terminal, South Korea and was meant to discharge the cargo at Vadinar, Gujarat and at the Mumbai Port. The total “laytime” contracted by the parties was for 96 hours and it is common ground that the excess time for which the vessel landed up having to be engaged was beyond the contracted laytime. However, disputes and differences between the parties relate to whether the demurrage charged in respect of the wait at Mumbai Port, where the port movement was suspended on August 7, 2010 owing to a collision between two vessels, stand to the account of BPCL in terms of the demurrage charged by NITC.

4. According to BPCL, no demurrage ought to have been charged since the suspension of port operations owing to the vessel collision, constituted a force majeure event. According to NITC, there was no fault on the part of NITC and the demurrage was indeed payable.

5. On September 9, 2010, NITC shared a Laytime Statement with Stockholm Chartering AB, a Swedish broker representing BPCL. It was the claim of NITC that the total laytime ended up being 329 hours and 35 minutes as against the contracted permissible laytime of 96 hours. Therefore, the time on demurrage was computed at 233 hours and 35 minutes. Demurrage was claimed in the sum of USD 224,823.97. This was disputed by BPCL and it responded on September 29, 2010 with a revised demurrage calculation sheet whereby 192.5 hours attributable to the wait in Mumbai Port was sought to be deleted. The revised demurrage calculation provided by BPCL led to a computation of an admitted liability of USD 41,406.67, and therefore, the only bone of contention between the parties that remained was whether the demurrage in respect of 192.05 hours at the Mumbai Port was a liability that BPCL ought to incur.

6. The parties exchanged correspondence thereafter and eventually a positive repudiation of claim was made by BPCL by an e-mail dated February 4, 2011, whereby BPCL took a position that the force majeure clause was explicit in its terms and that no demurrage whatsoever is payable. The factual backdrop described in this e-mail also narrated the incident that occurred at the Mumbai Port, and therefore, the discussion in this e-mail was entirely about the demurrage attributable to the 192.05 hours, which was the dispute between the parties.

7. At this stage, there is no reference in the e-mail about the admitted liability that had been communicated on September 29, 2010. The parties further corresponded without