LAWS(DLH)-2006-7-81

MMTC LIMITED Vs. SINEXIMCO PTE LTD

Decided On July 03, 2006
MMTC LIMITED Appellant
V/S
SINEXIMCO PTE LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of marketing, inter alia of Chrome Ore quarried by Orissa Mining Corporation, Bhubaneshwar. The respondent is engaged in the business of import and export in international market and negotiated with the petitioner from time to time to purchase Chrome Ore. A contract was thus executed between the parties on 05.09.1995. The contract was for purchase of two different qualities of friable Chrome Ore to be supplied by the Orissa Mining Corporation of 5,000 tonnes each. The two grades of Chrome were 50/48 per cent and 46/44 per cent at a price of USD 205 and USD 155 respectively per dry metric tone.

(2.) In pursuance of the contract, an advance of USD 2,67,000 was paid by the respondent to the petitioner. On the same date of 05.09.1995, another contract was also entered into between the parties and the respondent claims to have deposited a total sum of USD 5,47,500 including the aforesaid amount of advance of USD 2,67,500. The period of shipment was stated to be decided by mutual consent of the parties and was extended from time to time.

(3.) The price of the commodity, however, fell steeply in the international market so much so that the purchase price was fixed at USD 160 per metric tonne in case of 52 per cent grade, USD 150 per metric tonne for 50 per cent grade and USD 135 per metric tonne in case of 46 grade ore. The petitioner is also stated to have relaxed the terms for advance deposits whereby only 5 per cent amount had to be deposited as against the stipulation of 15 per cent advance as per the contract between the parties. In view of this developments, the respondent requested the petitioner on 30.05.1996 for being treated at par with other purchasers while treating the existing contract to have come to an end in view of an alleged force majeure. The request was not accepted by the petitioner who forfeited the money paid as advance vide a fax dated 12.06.1996 giving rise to disputes between the parties.