Civil Appeal No. 8645 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16210 of 2014). Case: Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. Vs Synergy Ispat Pvt. Ltd.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 8645 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16210 of 2014) |
| Judges | Jasti Chelameswar and Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9, 37(1); Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 37 |
| Judgement Date | September 12, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Jasti Chelameswar, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th May 2014 of the High Court of Calcutta in A.P.O.T. No. 460/2012, the Respondent therein filed this appeal.
-
The impugned order is a reversing order in appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2012 of single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in A.P. No. 245/2012 by which the learned single Judge rejected an application filed under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 holding that the Appellant was not entitled to interim injunction in aid of his claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell iron ore.
-
The factual background of the case is as follows.
-
The Appellant herein secured a mining lease originally from the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) in the year 1996. However, the Appellant could not secure the necessary approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Therefore, the mining operation had to be kept under suspension.
-
Sometime in the year 2005-2006, at the instance of the Respondent herein, the Appellant entered into two agreements. According to the Appellant (we say so because what exactly is the purport of the agreements is a matter pending consideration in arbitration, therefore, we do not wish to make any definite statement in that regard), one of the agreements is that the mining activity pursuant to the mining lease secured by the Appellant (referred to supra), shall be carried on by M/s. Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Metsil) which is said to be an associate company of the Respondent herein on various terms and conditions, the details of which may not be necessary. The agreement is dated 27.2.2005 between the Appellant herein and Metsil. The agreement is styled as 'Raising Contract'. The second agreement is between the Appellant and the Respondent herein for the sale of iron ore extracted by Metsil for being utilised in a sponge iron plant to be jointly set up by the Appellant and the Respondent herein. According to the Appellant, both the contracts are inter dependent. Failure of the first contract automatically results in failure of the second contract.
-
However, the Appellant claims to have realised on 22nd June, 2007 that the 'Raising Contract' by which the activity of mining was sought to be entrusted to Metsil is in violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, therefore, the Appellant sent letters to the Respondent as well as to the Metsil purporting to terminate both the contracts. It is stated at the Bar that, admittedly, Metsil never questioned the termination of the contract. However, the Respondent company chose to dispute the legality of the decision of the Appellant in terminating the agreement for sale of iron ore. The Respondent filed an application (A.P. No. 922/2011) Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying, inter alia, for an order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial