served. In spite of the receipt of the said notices, the petitioner herein and the second respondent therein did not appear before the Arbitral Tribunal. As regards the petitioner, an E-mail dated 08.04.2018 was sent denying the liability on the basis that the petitioner is only the clearing agent. The same contention is advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On examining the consignment notes, in particular, the terms and conditions of the contract of special carriage, it is clear that the petitioner is described as consignor in each of the consignment notes and there is no indication therein that the petitioner is an agent of the second respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner should have attended the Arbitral proceedings and established that it is an agent of the disclosed principal namely, the second respondent and therefore, not liable. But this was not done. The Arbitral Tribunal examined the records and concluded that both consignor and consignee are liable for the payment of transportation charges. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be stated that the petitioner herein was unable to present its case before the Arbitral Tribunal. Equally, it cannot be said that the award is contrary to public policy or patently illegal. Therefore, the petition to set aside the Arbitral award is dismissed.
