Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

I.A. Nos. 2-3 of 2014 in C.A. No. 11276-11277/2013. Case: M/s. Shark Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Paradeep Port Trust and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 6 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberI.A. Nos. 2-3 of 2014 in C.A. No. 11276-11277/2013
JudgesDr. Balbir Singh Chauhan and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.
IssueMedia and Communication
Citation2014 (4) SCALE 54
Judgement DateMarch 25, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Jasti Chelameswar, J.

  1. These IAs are filed with the following prayers:-

    (a) Permit the Appellant to continue in Plot No. 1-10 till the fulfillment of the subsisting contract with the overseas buyer namely Global Minore Pte. Ltd, Singapore, pursuant to which Appellant has already exported 1,30,501 MT towards part performance of the contract, and under which supplies are to be completed by 31.07.2014, without payment of any penalty;

    (b) Restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action against the Appellant till the disposal of this Application;

    (c) Pass such other order/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

    The Civil Appeal No. 11229 of 2013(arising out of Order dated 2.8.2012 of High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 11785 of 2012) was dismissed by an order dated 17.12.2013 and the applicant herein was not a party in W.P.(C) No. 11785 of 2012 before the High Court.

  2. The Appellant was allotted by the first Respondent Trust a plot bearing No. 1-10 (D Group) measuring 5,500 Sq. m. for a period of 11 months from 01.11.2011 to 30.09.2012 for a licence fee of ` 100 per Sq. m. per month.

  3. Pursuant to the order of the Orissa High Court dated 2nd August, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 11785 of 2012 against which C.A. No. 11229 of 2013 came to be filed, large number of notices were issued by the first Respondent terminating the licence of the various allottees of the plots. The validity of those notices was upheld by judgment of this Court in the above-mentioned appeal dated 17.12.2013.

  4. The Appellant herein claims that he has a subsisting contractual obligation to export a certain quantity of iron ore. In view of the fact that he has not vacated the premises in question, the Respondents have been collecting a penalty @ ` 200 per square meter per month in addition to the agreed licence fee.

  5. The Respondents though have invited bids for the grant of licence w.r.t. various plots, they have not invited bids for the plot in question. The Appellant, therefore, prays that it may be permitted to carry on its export operations in the plot in question till 31st July, 2014.

  6. Heard learned Attorney General appearing for the Respondents.

  7. The Respondents though did not dispute the fact that the lender call notice issued by them dated 24.1.2014 did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
6 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT