TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."MMTC"] under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] as well as an application under Order XXI Rule 29 of CPC seeking stay of the enforcement proceedings. The High Court further directed that the amount deposited by MMTC shall be withdrawn by the decree holder-Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Limited [for short "the Anglo"] along with the interest accrued. Aggrieved, the appellant-MMTC is in appeal by way of special leave. BRIEF FACTS:- 3. The respondent-Anglo, on 24.09.2012, invoked the arbitration clause in the Long Term Agreement [LTA] dated 07.03.2007 entered into between MMTC and Anglo. The claim in the arbitration was for damages on account of the unlifted quantity of coal contracted by the appellant-MMTC. The damages were computed based on the difference in the price between the contracted price of US$ 300 Per Metric Tonne [for short "PMT"] and the market price of US$ 126 PMT, multiplied by the unlifted quantity. In the arbitration, by an Award dated 12.05.2014, Anglo was awarded a sum of US$ 78.720 million along with interest and costs by a majority of 2:1. 4. By a judgment dated 10.07.2015, challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Viewed in the background of the fact that Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd (for short the "NINL") for whom the coal was sourced did not have pressing requirement of the ultimately contracted quantity and considering the fact that there was room for negotiation of the price, the contention of collusion and conspiracy became stark. 7.3 The fraud could not be discovered earlier since Shri Ved Prakash, who was Chief General Manager in 2008, became Director (Marketing) in 2010 and ultimately Chairman-cum-Managing Director in 2015, remained at the helm of affairs till 29.02.2020. The said officer was in control of the arbitral proceedings as well as at Section 34 and Section 37 stage. 7.4 When the Division Bench under Section 37 of the A&C Act set aside the Award on 02.03.2020, there was no occasion to examine the file to unearth the conspiracy. On 17.12.2020, when this Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and reinstated the Award, the matter was examined and on 24.02.2021, the then CMD of MMTC issued a confidential note requesting the Chief Vigilance Officer to seek permission of the Government of India to enquire into the matter. 7.5 It was thereafter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly to firm up the terms and conditions. Shri Ved Prakash was a junior member of the Committee in 2008 and by the time he became CMD of MMTC on 14.03.2015 (as mentioned in the objections), the Award had been pronounced by the Arbitral Tribunal on 12.05.2014. 8.6 The dispute commenced in March 2010 and culminated with the judgment of this Court on 17.12.2020 and the allegation of fraud is only to escape the liability under the Award. 9. By 28.10.2024, when the judgment was reserved in the Section 47 objections, MMTC had filed a Civil Suit praying that the Award dated 12.05.2014 is void and unenforceable. It further transpires that, on 29.07.2025, the said Civil Suit has been dismissed as not maintainable and a Regular First Appeal being RFA (OS) (Comm) No. 28 of 2025 is pending before the High Court. 10. On 11.11.2024, MMTC filed an application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC. By the impugned judgment, the Executing Court dismissed the objections under Section 47 as well as the Order XXI Rule 29 application seeking stay of execution, pending the suit. Aggrieved, MMTC has filed the present Appeal, by way of special leave, and this is how the matter presents itself before us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity qua an Arbitral Award can be raised in a proceeding under Section 47 of CPC though the scope was very narrow. 17. Before the High Court, considerable arguments were advanced on the question of maintainability of Section 47 objections under the CPC, once the award had been challenged and the Section 34 objection had been dismissed and sustained right up to the highest Court. The High Court held that if the objections under Section 47 are allowed to be entertained during the enforcement proceedings of an Award, it would effectively open a second round for challenging the Award. According to the High Court, this was not intended by the legislature and would defeat the purpose of the A&C Act, apart from delaying the finality of disputes. 18. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG, drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in Electrosteel (supra). In Electroteel (supra), certain arbitration proceedings between parties therein were commenced on 07.06.2017. On 27.06.2017, proceedings commenced under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the appellant therein. The arbitration proceedings were kept in abeyance, due to the moratorium. The respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated that plea of nullity qua an Arbitral award can be raised in a proceeding under Section 47 of CPC, but such a challenge would lie within a very narrow compass. This Court further held that in terms of Section 36 of the A&C Act, an Award can be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the CPC, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Civil Court. This Court further held as under. "48 Execution of decrees and orders is provided for in Order XXI CPC. The law is well settled that at the stage of execution, an objection as to executability of the decree can be raised but such objection is limited to the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness. The law laid down by this Court in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, (1970) 1 SCC 670, is that only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of objection under Section 47 CPC and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts. The aforesaid proposition of law continues to hold the field." 22. In conclusion, this Court on the said issue, held that objection to execution of an award under Section 47 was not dependent or contingent upon filing a petition under Section 34. Ultim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the MMTC) and is not a fraud on the Arbitral Tribunal. According to the learned senior counsel, fraud alleged is a fraud on the formation and validity of the underlying contract. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that these objections were never taken at any point in the earlier stage of litigation. 27. In response, Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG drew our attention to a judgment of the English Court and to the following passage in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 All ER 341, as cited in Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 311:- "I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever;" 28. Learned ASG also relied on the principle that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal and relied on the jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal or at least the High Court had considered the plea and found them unsustainable on merits, if they are meritless. But when the courts pre-empted the Insurance Company by slamming the doors against them, this Court has to step in and salvage the situation." 30. Faced with this situation, Mr. Kaul submitted that even if the case is examined on merits, the MMTC has not made out any case, nor even a prima facie case, by establishing any fraud or collusion warranting a decision that the Award is inexecutable. 31. In the light of the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are not inclined to dismiss the objections only on maintainability. Elaborate arguments spanning over several days have been heard on merits and we set out to examine the objection of the appellants on merits to see if any prima facie case of fraud is made out for the appellant to contend that the Award is inexecutable. NATURE OF ALLEGATION OF FRAUD - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY: - 32. The fraud that is alleged in this case originates in the grievance of MMTC that its employees in senior managerial roles including directors on the Board committed a breach of fiduciary duty. According to MMTC, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ositions. On the basis of this the court has to pass judgment on the way in which the directors conducted the affairs of the company over a period of days, weeks or, as in this case, months. Those statements and documents are analysed in the clinical atmosphere of the courtroom. They are analysed, for example, with the benefit of knowing that the company went into liquidation. It is very easy therefore to look at the signals available to the directors at the time and to assume that they, or any other competent director, would have realised that the end was coming. The court must be careful not to fall into the trap of being too wise after the event." (Emphasis supplied) 36. It is always useful while adjudicating on alleged breach of fiduciary cases to remember the memorable words of Lord Davey in Dovey and The Metropolitan Bank (of England and Wales) Limited v. John Cory 1901 Appeal Cases 477:- "I think the respondent was bound to give his attention to and exercise his judgment as a man of business on the matters which were brought before the board at the meetings which he attended, and it is not proved that he did not do so" (Emphasis supplied) 37.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neider Corp. 42 OR (3d) 177, thus: "The mandate of the directors is to manage the company according to their best judgment; that judgment must be an informed judgment; it must have a reasonable basis. If there are no reasonable grounds to support an assertion by the directors that they have acted in the best interests of the company, a court will be justified in finding that the directors acted for an improper purpose. The law as it has evolved in Ontario and Delaware has the common requirements that the court must be satisfied that the directors have acted reasonably and fairly. The court looks to see that the directors made a reasonable decision not a perfect decision. Provided the decision taken is within a range of reasonableness, the court ought not to substitute its opinion for that of the board even though subsequent events may have cast doubt on the board's determination. As long as the directors have selected one of several reasonable alternatives, deference is accorded to the board's decision...... This formulation of deference to the decision of the Board is known as the "business judgment rule". The fact that alternative transactions w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the determination of the case and they are set out hereunder: "CLAUSE 1: MATERIAL, QUANTITY, QUALITY AND DELIVERY PERIOD: 1.1 The SELLER shall sell and the PURCHASER shall buy, a) The base quantity during the currency of the contract shall be 466,000 (Four hundred Sixty six thousand) metric tons (of one thousand kilograms each) firm. b) During the First Delivery Period (1st July, 2004 to 30th June, 2005), a quantity of 464,374 (Four Hundred Sixty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Four) metric tons (of one thousand kilograms each) firm quantity of freshly mined and washed "Isaac", "Moranbah North" and "German Creek" coking coals. c) During the Second Delivery Period (1st July, 2005 to 30th June, 2006) a quantity of 382,769 (Three Hundred Eighty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine) metric tons (of one thousand kilograms each) firm quantity of freshly mined and washed "Isaac", "Moranbah North" and "German Creek" coking coals. d) During the Third Delivery Period (1st July, 2006 to 30th June, 2007) a quantity of 466,000 (Four Hundred Sixty Six Thousand) metric tons (of one thousand kilograms each) firm quantity of fres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the PURCHASER. 1.3 The PURCHASER had the option to extend the duration of the Agreement by two more years, at its sole discretion and the Purchaser to exercise its option for extending the Agreement by two more years or otherwise by 31 January, 2007. In case the PURCHASER decides to exercise such option, at its sole discretion, the Agreement shall have two more Delivery Periods as follows: Fourth Delivery Period: 1st July 2007 to 30thJune 2008 Fifth Delivery Period: 1st July 2008 to 30thJune 2009 CLAUSE 2: PRICE: 2.1 The firm price of the MATERIALS for the First Delivery Period 1st July 2004 to 30th June, 2005 shall be US$ 57.75 (United States Dollars, Fifty Seven and Cents Seventy Five only) per metric ton (of one thousand kilograms each) Free on Board (Trimmed). Port of Loading will be Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, Queensland, Australia. The firm price of the MATERIALS for the Second Delivery Period 1st July 2005 to 30th June, 2006 shall be US$ 126.75 (United States Dollars One hundred twenty six and Cents Seventy Five only) per metric ton (of one thousand kilograms each) Free on Board (Trimmed). Port of Loading will be Dalrymple Bay Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. As per Clause 2.2, the price was to be fixed in accordance with Para 1 of Annexure-I which dealt with General Conditions of Agreement. Under Para 1 of Annexure-I, the price for delivery of the materials during subsequent delivery periods was to be mutually discussed and settled by the purchaser and seller prior to the commencement of relevant delivery period at the same price as settled between the seller and SAIL/RINL, applicable to the relevant delivery period under the LTAs. 45. Clause 1.1 of the General Conditions of Agreement in Annexure-I is extracted hereunder: "GENERAL CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT (GCA) PARA 1.0: PRICE FIXATION 1.1 The price for delivery of the MATERIALS during subsequent Delivery Periods shall be mutually discussed and settled by the PURCHASER and SELLER prior to commencement of the relevant Delivery Period at the same price as settled between the SELLER AND STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA (SAIL) / RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD (RINL), applicable to the relevant Delivery Period under their respective Long Term Agreements." (Emphasis supplied) It is undisputed that the third delivery period also passed off smoothly from 01.07.2006 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence, deliveries were taking place and by the time the LTA was signed, it was mid-way during the third delivery period. As could be seen from the MoU, even the 4th delivery period was agreed upon and passed on without any dispute. The 5th delivery period was to begin on 01.07.2008, when the 4th delivery period stood extended till 30.09.2008. PRICES PEGGED TO SAIL/RINL PRICE: - 49. The price for the periods concerned was pegged by what the Empowered Joint Committee would fix for the contract with SAIL and RINL. This was also reiterated on 30.01.2007, contends Mr. Kaul. When matters stood thus, the time for the 4th delivery period which was extended to 30.09.2008, however, continued till 30.10.2008. In the meantime, as is clear from the internal note of 03.06.2008 circulated by Shri Suresh Babu of MMTC, SAIL and RINL had fixed their price for the delivery period from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009. On 03.06.2008, the Lehman Brothers' collapse had not happened. It commenced on 15.09.2008, and that is also not in dispute. INTERNAL NOTE OF 03.06.2008 50. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the internal note of 03.06.2008 prepared by Shri Suresh Babu for MMTC, which reads as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000 tons with provision for extension of delivery period by another three months, i.e., upto 30.9.09. in case the entire quantity cannot be delivered by 30 June 2009, delivery period will be extended upto 30.9.09." We may also request Anglo to extend the long term agreement for another five years with the terms and conditions of Steel Authority of India Ltd. For approval 'A' please Sd/- (SURESH BABU) 03.06.08 DIR (HSM) Upto March 09, we should try to avoid/ defer US$ 300 price coal to be finalised for 08-09 pl. 'X' app. Sd/- HS Mann 04/08." (Emphasis added) 51. As will be noticed, there was a note of Shri H.S. Mann, Director, to the effect that MMTC should try to avoid/defer US$ 300 price coal to be finalised for 08-09. Learned ASG highlighted this aspect of the matter in great detail. The learned ASG contended that even Mr. Mann, later was a party consenting to the price of US$ 300 PMT and wanted to infer certain sinister conduct in the same. EJC - APPROVAL OF SAIL/RINL PRICE AT US$ 300 PMT: 52. On 14.08.2008, Anglo wrote to MMTC about their agreement with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the terms and conditions of Anglo's Agreement/ amendment to Agreement with SAIL from time to time with logical changes wherever applicable. 8. The total value of the proposed purchase for 2008-09 is about Rs.615 crores (exchange rate US$/Rs. = 1/44). 9. Authorising Dir (HSM) and Dir (Fin) to sort out deadlock issues/make logical changes wherever required. 10. Associate Finance has concurred the proposal. 11. Director-HSM has seen and approved for circulation to SPCOD. C: DECLARATION The Division has truly and fairly brought out all material information available with the division which is likely to influence the decision SPC, in the agenda and no material information has been withheld." SPCoD APPROVAL OF 06.10.2008 55. The SPCoD met on 06.10.2008. The SPCoD (including Mr. H.S. Mann) granted approval in the following terms:- "Item No. 1: Agreement with Anglo coal Australia Pty. Ltd., for import of Coking Coal for NINL-as per note of GM (SB) dated 29.9.2008 The Committee after being informed that the proposed terms and conditions including deviations are same, as in the case of RINL/SAIL approved the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied upon by learned ASG to contend that NINL needed only 2.2 Lakh tons of Anglo coal. The letters dated 14.10.2008 and 16.10.2008 read as under:- "Ref.No.NINL/GM(Comml)/2008/1085 Mr. Suresh Babu, GM (Coal & Coke) MMTC Ltd., New Delhi Date: 14.10.2008 Dear Sir, Please refer to your mail dated 25th September, 2008 for procurement of coking coal of 12.66 lakh tons. MMTC may please place order for Anglo Coal consisting of 80% Dawson and 20% Capricon, since the same is approved by SAIL. Other terms and conditions may be negotiated and finalized. Thanking you, Yours faithfully For Neelanchal Ispat Nigam Ltd Sd/- [P.K. Pandey] DGM (Commercial) *** *** *** Ref. No. NINL/CM/24/1103 Dt. 16th October, 2008 Mr. Suresh Babu, General Manager (Coal & Coke) MMTC Limited Core-1, Scope Complex 7 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003 Dear Sir, Please refer to your mail dated 25th September, 2008 for procurement of Coking Coal of 12.66 Lakh Tons. It may be noted that our annu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod (from 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2009) quantity (4,66,000 MT) and price were already fixed in terms of the LTA. The price was to follow the SAIL/RINL price which has been duly fixed at US$ 300 PMT for the said period. 63. The Addendum of 20.11.2008 is in the form of a letter addressed by MMTC to Anglo. It is to the attention of Mr. John B. Wilcox. It states that MMTC was pleased to confirm the settlement with Anglo and, thereafter, the column below deals with (i) delivery period - 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009, (ii) quantity - 4,66,000 MT. Thereafter, it deals with coal brands and price (US$ 300 PMT), other terms like total moisture, loading terms, vessel sizes, loading rates, demurrage rates for different ports, the variation permissible limits and force majeure clause. At the end it has the following clause: "All other terms and conditions of agreement no. MMTC/C&HC/LT/HCC/NINL/ANGLO/585 DATED 7^TH MARCH 2007 shall remain unchanged". 64. It should be recalled that shipments have happened based on correspondence, as stated earlier from 2004 and agreements have been entered into post the shipments even for the 5th delivery period. Admittedly, 2,366 MT were shipped o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 1st July 2008 to 30th June 2009 period to level that was settled for delivery period 1st July 2007 to 30th June 2008. This only will help us to keep the plant running and to produce on consistent basis. We look forward for your positive response. Yours faithfully Sd/- MMTC Ltd. Ved Prakash Chief General Manager" (Emphasis supplied) 66. The letter was written by Shri Ved Prakash who was then the Chief General Manager and the substance of the letter was that since pig iron prices have crashed, to purchase coal at US$ 300 PMT to produce pig iron could be an unviable option. Hence, a request was made for price reduction of coal for the period from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 to the level which obtained for the delivery period from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008. 67. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned ASG about the significance of letter being written on the same day after signing the Addendum No.2. The learned ASG also invited our attention to the observations of majority members of the Board of Arbitration about the Addendum being executed and the letter being written on the same day respectively. SUBSEQUENT CORRES....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the Carryover evenly spread over the first 2 years of the contract. • This proposal is made without prejudice to our rights under the Agreement. It will remain open and capable of acceptance until 5:00 pm (Brisbane time) on Wednesday 30th Sept 2009. 70. Learned ASG submitted that by letter of 25.09.2009, Shri Suresh Babu declined the proposal which the learned ASG stated would indicate that the reply strengthened the case of Anglo. Referring to the counter proposal in the letter of 25.09.2009, the learned ASG referred to the following paragraph in the said letter:- "...Keeping these issues in mind, we had approached Anglo Coal for a reduction in price vide our letter dated 20.11.2008. Lifting another 38% implies a further increase in loss by another USD 80/t. For the sake of negotiation, we hope you will not ignore the economic realities completely. Steel Melting Shop of NINL is under implementation and the commissioning is expected sometime in end 2010. Economy will also come out of recession gradually. In short we are not denying our obligation. The request is only for staggering the time frame for lifting as explained in para 1 and para 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted price. 75. Mr. Kaul strongly refuted the contention that Anglo allowed SAIL and RINL to lift their 2008-09 quantities at a reduced price. Mr. Kaul submitted that SAIL and RINL were in the first delivery period of their new LTA and as such could lift coal pertaining to their future delivery period alongside their 2008-09 carryover and could thus seek mixed price cargo with shipments containing some percentage of 2008-09 carryover and some percentage of the ongoing delivery period. Mr. Kaul submitted that MMTC was in the last delivery period and even then they were not treated differently than SAIL or RINL. 76. According to Mr. Kaul, on 15.07.2009, MMTC was offered an ad hoc "mixed price shipment" to tide over financial difficulties of MMTC. According to the learned senior counsel, what was offered in the letter, namely, 40,400 MT at US$ 128.25 PMT was on ad hoc basis with a condition that their carry over quantity of 5th delivery period will be supplied only at US$ 300 PMT. 77. Mr. Kaul, learned senior counsel for Anglo submitted that the letter of 21.09.2009 by Anglo offered the same "carry over terms" to MMTC as was offered to SAIL/RINL, as is clear from the letter it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TC'S CONTRACT WITH BMA - SAME PERIOD / SAME PRICE (APPROXIMATELY):- 81. Dealing with the aspect of the contracted price, namely, US$ 300 PMT, Mr. Kaul highlighted the fact that MMTC had a parallel contract with BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA). Under the said contract, MMTC lifted five lakh tons of hard coking coal at US$ 300 PMT (Goonyella Middle Seam brand) and US$ 292.5 PMT (Torrington brand) and US$ 270 PMT (soft coking coal) and absolutely no grievance was made about the said contract with BMA. Quantities were lifted and price paid without demur, contends Mr. Kaul. Mr. Kaul further submitted that in fact the price paid to BMA was used as a defence when Anglo sought damages pointing to market price at US$ 126 PMT. The argument of MMTC before the arbitrators was that there was no scope for damages as the market price was what they had paid to BMA. 82. In response to the aspect of supply by BMA, learned ASG submitted that the said transaction was vastly different from the one entered with MMTC. The learned ASG submitted that a. The agreement entertained between BMA and MMTC was qua 5,00,000 MT hard coking coal and 3,00,000 black water soft coking coal whereas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given by the Majority Award were findings of fact, there having been little dispute on the construction of any term of the LTA; no dispute as to the contracted quantity of coal that was to be supplied in the Fifth Delivery Period, i.e. 466,000 metric tonnes: no dispute as to the price at which such coal was to be supplied, i.e., at the rate of $300 per metric tonne; and no dispute as to the quantity of coal that remained unlifted, i.e., 454,034 metric tonnes. The only issue before the Arbitral Tribunal was whether the Appellant was unable to supply the contracted quantity of coal at the contractual price, or whether the Respondent was unwilling to lift the quantity of coal at the contractual price, both being purely questions of fact as to the performance of contractual obligations stemming from the LTA." 14. "Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent, supported the impugned judgment of the Division Bench According to him... the Respondent was in a position to take supplies, and did in fact demand that supplies of coal be made in accordance with the LTA." 17. "The first and most important point, therefore, to be noted is tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at officials did not assert the legal position of MMTC against Anglo. A particular reference is made to the use of phrase "we are not denying our obligation" in the letter of 25.09.2009 which, according to the complaint, weakened the MMTC's defense in arbitration. 88. The FIR refers to an allegation about Anglo providing reduced price US$ 128 PMT and staggered deliveries to SAIL and RINL but refusal of the same to MMTC/NINL. It alleges that MMTC officials failed to invoke parity or renegotiation clauses, indicating deliberate inaction. It was stated in the FIR that all this suggested that there was exchange of unlawful and illegal consideration between the erring officials of MMTC and Anglo. 89. As will be noticed above, the gravamen of the allegations in the FIR is similar to the allegations set out in the proceedings before us which we have discussed in detail hereinabove. 90. Alluding to the First Information Report, Mr. Kaul submitted that the whole attempt to file a criminal complaint and get the FIR registered is a malicious attempt to wriggle out of the award and mere pendency of the FIR could not render the award inexecutable. Mr. Kaul submitted that MMTC filed a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of the pros and cons of the case advanced by both the parties, the following undisputed facts/irresistible deductions emerge:- a. That there was a Long Term Agreement (LTA) between the parties on 07.03.2007 which for the first three delivery periods clearly prescribed the quantity of 4,66,000 MT as the yearly base quantity of which 4,64,374 MT was fixed for the first delivery period, 3,82,769 MT was fixed for the 2nd delivery and 4,66,000 was fixed for 3rd delivery period. b. In clause 2 of the LTA, the price for the 1st and 2nd delivery period was prescribed. For the subsequent delivery period, the price was fixed in accordance with para 1 of the General Conditions of the Agreement (GCA). Para 1.1 of GCA prescribed that the price was to be mutually discussed and settled at the same price as settled between Anglo and SAIL/RINL. c. Under clause 1.3 of the LTA, the option to extend the duration of the agreement was to be exercised by 31.01.2007. It has not been disputed before us that a MoU dated 30.01.2007 was executed between MMTC and Anglo. Under the MoU read with Clause 1.3 of LTA, supply of a quantity of 4,66,000 MT at a price to be finalized by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puted and in fact the argument in the proceedings to set aside the award was based on the price paid to BMA to contend that no damages occurred to Anglo. Further, the stand of the learned ASG insofar as the supply by BMA is concerned as dealt with above shows that there was indeed supply by BMA at the rate of US$ 292 PMT and US$ 270 PMT, though the period of carryover offered may have been different. o. The exercise of writing a letter on 20.11.2008, namely, the same day as the Addendum No.2 has been explained as an attempt by MMTC to renegotiate the price. Per se on this basis and without anything more, nothing sinister could be imputed. There has been no convincing explanation from the appellant to the argument of Anglo that the common course of human conduct of conspiring parties would be to lift the coal at the agreed price, pay the amount and share the booty, instead of litigating for 15 years. p. The subsequent correspondence and the context in which they were written viewed in the background of the findings of this Court do not indicate that it was a friendly fight intended to commit certain admissions in the correspondence. On the concept of carryover also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of MMTC did not act in the best interest of the company. 96. The appeal challenges, in the prayer clause, the judgment dismissing the objections in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 19 of 2018. Though in the prayer clause, there is no challenge to dismissal of the application under Order XXI Rule 29 filed in EX/application (OS) 1806 of 2024, in Para 1 of the civil appeal the appellants have indicated that they are aggrieved by the said order also. Order XXI Rule 29 provides for stay of execution pending suit between decree holder and judgment debtor. We were, however, told that the suit filed itself now stands rejected under Order VII Rule 11 but a regular first appeal in RFA-28 of 2025 has been filed. Hence, an occasion for considering an Order XXI Rule 29 Application does not arise. 97. We are dealing with an objection filed under Section 47 claiming that the award as upheld by this Court is inexecutable. As held by this Court in Electrosteel (Supra) the jurisdiction lies in a narrow compass. It is the mandate of this Court that the object of Section 47 is to prevent unwarranted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible. This Court has warned that there is a ....