##PAGE1##

* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 01.09.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 22.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010277772023 + O.M.P. (COMM) 260/2023, I.A. 13360/2023 & I.A.13361/2023 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Ashish Rana, Mr. Gaurav Raj, Mr. Amitabh Yash Singh & Mr. Narendra, Advs.

versus NORVIC SHIPPING NORTH AMERICA INC.....Respondent Through: Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Ms.

Tripti Sharma, Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta & Mr. Ishan Parashar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

J U D G M E N T

1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) against the arbitral award dated 19.10.2022 passed by a three-member arbitral tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) and rectified vide order dated 21.02.2023 (for brevity ‘the impugned award’).

BRIEF FACTS

2. M/s Norvic Shipping North America Inc. (for short ‘the respondent’) is a company incorporated under the laws of Canada and engaged in the transportation of dry bulk cargoes including limestone. Steel Authority of India Limited (for short ‘the petitioner’) is a listed public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of steel. The parties to the lis on 05.04.2019 executed a Contract of Affreightment (for short ‘CoA’) for shipping 16,00,000 metric tons of limestone (hereinafter referred to as ‘the cargo’) over multiple voyages. The cargo was to be shipped from the United Arab Emirates to India. The CoA required the respondent to nominate vessels.

2.1 During the execution of the CoA, disputes arose between the parties inter alia in relation to the calculation of laytime at different discharge ports and demurrage. The respondent invoked arbitration on

11.06.2020 by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act.

2.2 The dispute before the tribunal pertained to eight Motor Vessels (for short ‘MV’). The claim in respect of MV ‘River Globe’ was rejected by the tribunal. The present petition pertains to the remaining seven vessels, namely, MV ‘Pegasus’, MV ‘Esperia’, MV ‘Cas Avanca’, MV ‘Vishva Ekta’, MV ‘Jay’, MV ‘Blue Ripple’ and MV ‘Sparrow’ (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘seven vessels’).

2.3 The vessel-wise details are set out hereunder:

i. MV ‘Pegasus’ – Loaded the cargo at Mina Saqr Port on 19.04.2019 and proceed to Paradip Port for the first discharge and thereafter to Haldia Port. On 29.04.2019, a Notice of Readiness (for short ‘NOR’) was issued at Paradip Port. The operation was suspended by the port authorities on account of the incoming Cyclone ‘Fani’ and the vessel was instructed on 03.05.2019 to discharge the cargo at Vizag Port. The vessel arrived at Vizag Port on 05.05.2019 and the NOR was issued on the same date. After discharging the cargo, the vessel proceeded to Haldia Port. Upon arrival at Sandheads Anchorage, the NOR was issued on 10.05.2019. The vessel was called for berthing on 17.05.2019 but could not berth on account of generator problem. Without prejudice to the earlier NOR another NOR was issued on 17.05.2019. The berth was given on 18.05.2019 but the vessel actually berthed on 19.05.2019. The cargo was discharged on 20.05.2019. Demurrage at the rate of USD 12,100 per day was claimed in terms of Clause 28 of the CoA and Box 15.

ii. MV ‘Esperia’ – The first port of discharge was changed from Visakhapatnam Port to Paradip Port where the NOR was issued upon arrival on 10.07.2019. The total time available for discharge was five days and six hours. The berthing instructions at Paradip Port were received on 27.07.2019 but the cargo could not be discharged owing to a misunderstanding between the owner of the vessel and the respondent. Consequently, the vessel re-anchored on 27.07.2019. Ultimately the vessel re-berthed on 31.07.2019 and NOR issued on 10.07.2019 was accepted by the petitioner on 31.07.2019. After discharging the cargo, the vessel reached Haldia Port on 03.08.2019 and issued the NOR on the same day