R. Banumathi JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment and order dated 4.2.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby learned Single Judge allowed the arbitration petition preferred by the Respondent Under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act"). By the aforesaid petition, Respondent had inter alia sought direction to enforce and execute the foreign award dated 18th December, 2009 as decreed in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant is carrying on business at Mumbai inter alia of import and export of commodities and the Respondent company is having its office at Singapore. On 20th August, 2008, the Appellant through the broker B.B. Rubber Pvt. Ltd. (in short, 'Broker') confirmed the offer for purchase of natural rubber RSS-3 (Thailand origin). The Respondent issued a sales contract bearing No. 03S8733 for 200 Metric Tons (MT) of Thai RSS-3 at US $2,880 per metric ton, CIF Nhava Sheva, India with payment term 100% against Letter of Credit for shipment in September, 2008. The said sale contract, signed by the representative of the Respondent, provided the governing terms as "Singapore Commodity Exchange". The name of the Appellant was described as buyer, who issued purchase Order No. BOM:PO:2008-09:286 dated 21st August, 2008. As pleaded by the Appellant, by this purchase order, the Appellant placed orders on the terms and conditions set out therein. The Appellant thereafter requested to change the payment term in the said sales contract to be 10% advance by TT (Telegraph Transfer) and balance 90% by DP (documents against payment) at sight through e-mail dated 26th August, 2008. This request for amendment was accepted by the Respondent and accordingly it issued invoice dated 27th August, 2008 for the 10% advance payment for 200 metric tons RSS 3 at the rate of US$ 2,880/MT. It is the case of the Respondent that latter the invoice was split into two invoices of 100 metric tons each for which 10% of contract value was US$ 28,800. Cargo of 200 MT RSS-3 was accordingly shipped to Nahava Sheva and original documents of shipments were couriered to the Appellant's Bank.
4. On 11th October, 2008, the broker sent a letter to the Appellant to confirm acceptance of their request to split bills of lading separately as conditions for payment upon presentation. The Respondent on 17th October, 2008 requested for return of the documents from Indian Overseas Bank of the Appellant in order to split the bills of lading into smaller lots as requested by the Appellant. On 31st October, 2008, the Respondent sent the revised split bills of lading and invoices for resubmission on Indian Overseas Bank for payment. On 31st October, 2008, the Appellant confirmed acceptance of non-negotiable documents for both contracts and requested for price deduction as conditions to make payment, which was not accepted by the Responden........