35.In the present case, respondent no.1 has filed the claim before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator for Rs. 7,58,854/- as Principal sum and excess amount including EMD lying with the petitioner for the goods not delivered and while deciding the same, Ld. Sole Arbitrator has observed that since respondent no.1 could not lift the cargo due to a major quality issue, the said amount is due to be refunded by the petitioner but after deducting the loss of profit suffered by them on account of 382 bags unlifted post acceptance by respondent no.1 as above and fixed the loss of profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per MT on 19.10 MT (382x50 Kg per bag) totalling a net loss of Rs. 1,91,000/- and thus, the net amount which becomes payable by the petitioner under above claim of respondent no.1 worked out by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator to Rs. 5,67,854/-. Before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, respondent no.1 has also filed a claim of Rs.18,00,000/- against the loss of profit due to non- delivery of goods however, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has observed that the contract does not provide for any such consequential damages and the same was without any base which cannot be granted and no such relief was granted to respondent no1 as in the face of finding the above goods as of un-acceptable quality within initial four weeks itself, respondent no. 1 had all the opportunity to resort to procurement of commodity from alternative sources. While deciding the issues, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has discussed the issues in details and given a reasonable, meaningful, appropriate and effective interpretation of the contract after detailed discussion, which is evident in this case and thus, the same cannot be interfered
