REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MMTC LIMITED Appellant

V/S

Anglo American Metallurgical Pty Limited Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

AZHAR HUSSAIN V. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR SINGH V. KEDAR NATH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAI PRATAP SINGH AND RAMJIWAN MISIR VS. DUKH HARAN NATH SINGH AND IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
T ARIVANDANDAM VS. T V SATYAPAL [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK VS. SATYAM FIBRES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
D RAMACHANDRAN VS. R V JANAKIRAMAN [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. INDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION [REFERRED TO]
LIVERPOOL AND LONDON S P AND I ASSOCIATION LIMITED VS. M V SEA SUCCESS [REFERRED TO]
SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE VS. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR RAJYA M S E S K K MAHASANGH [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. SIDCO LEATHER [REFERRED TO]
MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDIT PVT LTD VS. MODI RUBBER LTD [REFERRED TO]
HARDESH ORES P LTD VS. HEDE AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMESH GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. AMARLAL V JUMANI [REFERRED TO]
P V GURU RAJ REDDY VS. P NEERADHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
A. AYYASAMY VS. A. PARAMASIVAM & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RASHID RAZA VS. SADAF AKHTAR [REFERRED TO]
M. HARIHARASUDHAN VS. R. KARMEGAM [REFERRED TO]
DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI [REFERRED TO]
PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. PRABHA JAIN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Filing of the present suit by the plaintiff herein is a classic case of abuse of the process of law. Having exhausted all the remedies as available under the law, the present suit has been filed seeking to re-litigate the issues already adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitral Award which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on a ground of fraud not upon the Court but by the officials of the plaintiff itself. The issue which is before me is: Can a 'suit' be maintainable to declare an Arbitral Award a nullity. In my view, if this is allowed, then the very purpose and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') will be rendered infructuous/otiose.

(2.) The present suit filed by the plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs:-

(3.) The plaintiff is a Central/Public Sector Enterprise, the entire shareholding is held by the Central Government. The plaintiff is under the pervasive control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Amongst other things, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of export and import of mineral ores and essential metals whereas the defendant No. 1 is the international supplier of the coking coal.

Click here to view full judgment.

MMTC LIMITED Vs. ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL PTY LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address