COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 01..04..2008 MThe Honourable Mr. A.P. Shah v. M/s. Metro Machinery Traders

1.Union of India,Rep. by its Secretary,Ministry of Coal and Mines,Central Secretariat,New Delhi.2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited(A Govt. of India Enterprise),Disposal Wing, Marketing Branch,Card Complex, Office of the Deputy General Manager,Chemical Units, Neyveli-607 807.3.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,Having its Registered Office at'Neyveli House', rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units,135, Periyar E.V.R. High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-10.4.State Trading Corporation of India Limited,Having its Registered Office at No.1,Toistory Marketing, New Delhi-3.5.Metal Scrap Trading Corporation(A Govt. of India Enterprise),'Ranka Chambers',31, First Floor, Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.6The Director,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,No.25, Gopalakrishna Iyer Road,.. Respondents inT. Nagar, Chennai-17.W.A.1562 of 2007Prayer : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order of a learned single Judge of this Courtdated 26.10.2007 passed in W.P. No.43497 of 2006 presentedunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writof Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating tothe sale order/Acceptance Letter No.MSTC/S/NLC/EA-14/2005-06/101/008, dated 01.04.2005 issued by the fifth respondentand quash the same and direct the second and third respondentsto return the amount of Rs.163,49,96,511/- (Rupees One Hundredand Sixty Three Crores forty Nine lakhs Ninety Six Thousandand Five Hundred and Eleven only) after deducting the amountsalready received, with interest at the rate of 18% from30.04.2005 to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A. No.1488 of 2007For Appellants and RR2 & 3in WA.1502/07 and 1562/07 : Mr. N.A.K. SarmaFor Respondent-1, R1 in : Mr. G.L. Rawal, Senior CounselWA.1502/07 and Appellant and Mr. K.S. Vasan for in WA.1562/07 M/s. Murthy & Vasan.For Respondent-2 andR1 in WA.1562/07and R6 in WA.1502/07 : Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General.For Respondent-3 andR4 in WA.1562/07 : Mr. D. Roy Choudhuri, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. UmapathyFor Respondent-4 and R4 : Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counselin WA.1502/07, for Mr. F.B. Benjamin GeorgeR5 in WA.1562/07For Respondent-5 and R5in WA.1502/07 R6 in WA.1562/07 : Mr. P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General of India J U D G M E N T( Delivered by Prabha Sridevan, J. )The writ petition was filed by the first respondent in W.A. No.1562of 2007 for quashing the Sale Order/Acceptance Letter No.MSTC/S/NLC/EA-14/2005-06/101/008 dated 1.4.2005 issued by the fifth respondent, quashthe same and direct the second and third respondents to return theamount of Rs.163,49,96,511/- after deducting the amounts alreadyreceived, with interest at the rate of 18% from 30.4.2005 to thepetitioner. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that factsare disputed and they must be established before a court of law byadducing sufficient proof and that the writ court cannot grant therelief sought for. But, while dismissing the writ petition, the learnedsingle Judge gave findings that the contract between the parties wasvoid ab initio, that the appellant in W.A. No.1488 of 2007 (respondentin the writ petition) had committed fraud and answered these questionsin favour of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by that, W.A. No.1488 of2007 has been filed on the ground that even if the appellant were to gobefore a forum where a decision on fact could be obtained, thesefindings would operate against them. W.A. No.1502 of 2007 has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed for restitution of the money invested by the appellant in the saidappeal. W.A. No.1562 of 2007 has been filed by the writ petitioneragainst rejection of monetary relief as prayed for.2. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder :The appellant in W.A. No.1488 of 2007, Neyveli Lignite CorporationLimited, 'NLC' for short, intended to set up and install a fertilizerplant some time in the 1960s and for installation of the fertilizerplant, some input machineries were imported. Some time in the 1990s,the plant had to be revamped and therefore, NLC imported certainmachineries and equipments for utilisation of the same in revamping. Butthereafter, the pricing policy of the Government of India made thefertilizer plant totally unviable. NLC decided to close down thefertilizer unit with effect from 28.1.2002. A decision was taken todispose of the entire plant and machinery on an 'as is where is basis'by a process of e-auction to be conducted by the Metal Scrap TradingCorporation (MSTC). According to NLC, no restriction or condition hadto be fulfilled before this could be disposed of. However, NLC informedthe Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs by their letter dated24.5.2004, of its proposal to dispose of the fertilizer plant. On7.6.2004, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam soughtcertain clarifications and also visited the fertilizer plant. On30.6.2006, NLC replied to the Central Excise authorities that themachineries were imported for revamping the fertilizer plant afterpayment of Customs/Excise duty as applicable and furnished all thenecessary details. On 2.7.2004, the Superintendent, Central Exciseasked for details of machineries imported with partial/full exemption ofCustoms Duty and Bills of Entry for the same. On 10.7.2004, NLC gavefull details of the equipment imported by the fertilizer plant alongwith copies of Bills of Entries and the copies of the relevant CustomsDuty Exemption Notifications of the Government of India. 3. About seven months thereafter, on 25.2.2005, NLC conductedthrough MSTC, the e-auction for the disposal of the disbanded fertilizerplant. Metro Machinery Traders (MMT), the writ petitioner (appellant inW.A. No.1562 of 2007) offered Rs.132 Crores and was the highest bidder.It furnished demand drafts for a sum of Rs.13.2 Crores in favour of NLCas a security deposit. MSTC, as the selling agent of NLC, issued theSale Order/Acceptance Letter in favour of MMT on 1.4.2005, which issought to be quashed in the writ petition. On 29.4.2005, MMT enteredinto a Memorandum of Understanding with the appellant in W.A. No.1502 of2007, i.e., the State Trading Corporation of India ('STC' for short).The sale consideration as per the MoU was Rs.149,79,96,511/-. On thesame day, a sale agreement and a pledge deed were also executed. On30.4.2005, MMT deposited the above sum of Rs.149 Crores towards fullpayment to NLC. On 11.5.2005, MMT obtained factory licence and on18.5.2005, NLC issued the delivery order. The delivery period was 370days, i.e. from 19.5.2005 to 23.5.2006. NLC also informed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Superintendent of Central Excise about the e-auction and the fact thatMMT had purchased the plant and machinery. This was on 30.6.2005. On23.4.2006, MMT requested NLC to extend the time for finishing the workstating that almost 75% of the dismantling work had been completed. On25.4.2006, MMT sent a legal notice to STC calling upon them to refundthe cheque for the sum of Rs.150 Crores which was given as a security byMMT. On 1.5.2006, MMT issued a legal notice to STC and called upon themto remove the dismantled plant and machinery and continue to removewhatever stands dismantled from time to time and go ahead with the sale.4. On 19.5.2006, STC filed a petition under the Arbitration andConciliation Act before the Delhi High Court. An ex parte interim orderwas passed by the Delhi High Court restraining NLC from paying anyamount to MMT and appointed an Advocate Commissioner. On 7.6.2006, theDirector of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Trichy informed NLC to arrangefor an on-the-spot verification. The Advocate Commissioner appointed bythe Delhi High Court visited the fertilizer plant on between 7.6.2006and 15.6.2006 and prepared an inventory. The officials of DRI visitedNLC, perused the files and recorded some statements. On 19.6.2006, theDRI informed NLC that "the goods/spares imported under concessional rateof Customs Duty and used in the revamping of the said fertilizer plantshould not be disposed of or removed till the investigation by theDirectorate is complete". NLC filed a detailed counter before the DelhiHigh Court. On 7.8.2006, the Delhi High Court passed an orderappointing STC as the Receiver and directing NLC to facilitate the sale.Pursuant to this order, on 22.8.2006, MMT requested NLC to permit themto dispatch the materials to their buyers with immediate effect. On23.8.2006, NLC intimated the order of the Delhi High Court to the DRIand on 24.8.2006, the DRI instructed NLC to strictly adhere to theirletter dated 20.6.2006, by which they were asked not to remove ordispose of the goods imported under concessional rate of Customs Dutyand used in the revamping of the fertilizer plant until investigation bythe DRI is complete. On 25.8.2006, NLC permitted MMT to take deliveryof the materials under the control of the Court Receiver. On 26.8.2006,MMT through STC removed 38 truckloads of dismantled materials from26.8.2006 to 2.9.2006. On 29.8.2006, NLC asked MMT to remove withoutany delay, all the materials, except the imported materials. On1.9.2006, MMT sent a legal notice to NLC demanding refund of the EMD.On 2.9.2006, NLC reiterated its request to MMT to remove the indigenousmachineries and loose items, except the imported materials, without anydelay. On 13.9.2006, NLC granted MMT, extension of delivery period by75 days. On 14.9.2006, the DRI seized the imported materials alone outof the materials not yet removed by MMT and prepared a mahazar. 5. On 18.9.2006, NLC filed an application before the Delhi HighCourt to implead the DRI and the Commissioner (Customs) as parties. On20.9.2006, the Delhi High Court rejected the application filed by NLC.On 26.9.2006, NLC requested the DRI to permit the removal of theimported materials also, against bond. On 27.9.2006, the DRI issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the ManagingPartner of MMT. On 30.9.2006, MMT sent a legal notice to NLC demandingrefund of EMD etc. On 19.10.2006, the Delhi High Court passed an orderrestraining MMT from transferring, alienating or encumbering theproperties of respondents 1 to 8 s per Annexure 'C' to that application.On 4.11.2006, NLC replied to MMT's notice dated 1.9.2006. On6.11.2006, MMT filed the present writ petition for quashing the salenotice and for the monetary relief as stated earlier. 6. Before the learned single Judge, NLC contended that the writpetition was not maintainable since there were disputed questions offact and that there was an arbitral clause in the agreement entered intobetween the parties and the same has to be invoked. The learned singleJudge accepted the case that there were two independent transactions,one between MMT and NLC, which culminated in the auction sale and theother between MMT and STC, which was subjudice. The learned Judge,however, with regard to the transaction between MMT and NLC, held thatNLC had knowledge about the importation of the goods subject to theNotification and that it could be sold only after the dutis are clearedand otherwise, the stringent provision under the law would follow. Thelearned Judge held that the machinery had been imported and there was aban for sale of the property without the clearance from the Departmentand therefore, the sale was forbidden by law and that it is a contractvoid ab initio. According to the learned Judge, the factual positionwith regard to the payment of concession and duties and the use of theimported materials for its own purpose were matters within the specialknowledge of NLC and the bidders were not put on notice of this positionand therefore, the officials, who (should have got the clear knowledgeof the transactions) and had a duty to bring it to the notice of theauction purchasers, had not done so and that no one would have venturedto purchase the properties when it was under the active clutches of lawand that concealment is evident and having come to the aboveconclusions, answered the question regarding whether the contract wasvoid ab initio and whether there was fraud in favour of MMT. But, asregards the remedy that MMT claimed, the learned Judge, while referringto Clause 59 of the agreement, which is the arbitration clause, heldthat when the contract is prohibited by law, even if there was anindependent arbitration clause, no one can derive benefit from the voidcontract. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the parties cannotinvoke the arbitration clause. As far as quantification of the monetaryrelief is concerned, the learned Judge had considered the facts relatingto the dismantling and removal of the goods and held that a perusal ofthese details would clearly reveal all the facts "except the value ofthe materials removed". Therefore, the learned Judge held that in acase like this, "Where the petitioner wants to have the entire amount tobe refunded, unless and until facts regarding the value of themachineries removed are not certain, the Court cannot grant the reliefsought for". Therefore, the learned Judge held that the Court is unableto grant the relief and it could be decided "only by a court of civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law" and not by a writ court. The impugned order was passed by thelearned single Judge on 26.10.2007. It is against these findings thatNLC has filed W.A. No.1488 of 2007; STC has filed W.A. No.1502 of 2007against the refusal to order restitution and MMT has filed W.A. No.1562of 2007 against the refusal to grant refund.7. Heard Mr. N.A.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for NLC, Mr.G.L. Rawal, Mr. D. Roy Choudhuri and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the respondents as well as Mr. V.T. Gopalan,learned senior counsel and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant SolicitorGeneral appearing for the Union of India.8. Learned counsel appearing for NLC filed in Court, brief Notes onthe factual aspects of the case. Learned senior counsel appearing forMMT filed written submissions. Learned senior counsel appearing for STCalso filed written submissions.9. Learned counsel appearing for NLC would submit that the impugnedorder suffers from severe infirmities :(a) When the learned single Judge had come to the conclusion,and rightly so, that there were disputed questions of fact, he oughtnot to have given any findings regarding factual issues.(b) The finding that the goods were prohibited goods andtherefore, the contract was void ab initio is ex facie wrong sincethe goods at the worst are only dutiable goods. As per theGovernment Notification, NLC could import the goods subject tocertain conditions and according to NLC, those conditions werecomplied with. The DRI has presently initiated proceedings wherethis issue would be adjudicated upon and even if the DRI and theCustoms Authorities do not accept the case of the appellant, theonly consequence would be that the appellant would be called upon topay the duty because the goods are not prohibited goods andtherefore, the contract is not void ab initio. (c) The learned single Judge had erroneously come to theconclusion that there was fraud. To establish fraud, the personalleging it will have to prove that there was active concealment ofa material fact and for that, evidence is required; in any event,NLC had laid all the cards on the table. NLC had informed the DRIof the fact that it intended to sell the plant and machinery andthat the goods were procured only after paying the duty asapplicable, and whatever clarifications were sought for by theDepartment had been given by NLC and it was several monthsthereafter that the e-auction was held and during that period, therewas no intimation from the DRI, which could in any way haveinhibited NLC from proceeding with the e-auction. In thesecircumstances, there was nothing to be concealed and nothing was infact concealed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d) Learned counsel submitted that as far as NLC is concerned,the sale had been effected. As per the contract, no re-selling waspermitted within the premises of NLC. According to the learnedcounsel, contrary to the terms of the contract betweenMMT and NLC,MMT had entered into an agreement with STC, by which a sum of Rs.150Crores had been advanced by STC to MMT, part of which sum wasapparently utilised by MMT for making the deposit to NLC. Learnedcounsel also submitted that it is surprising that STC advanced themoney on the basis of no security, apart from the letters from theValuers. (e) Even assuming the argument that the contract is void abinitio, the contract between the parties contained an arbitrationclause and this question as to whether the contract was void is anarbitrable issue and therefore, MMT must go before the arbitratorfor resolution of its disputes. (f) In addition, learned counsel submitted that severaltruckloads had been removed and the learned single Judge hadaccepted all those documents as though they were proved documents,whereas only in some of the gate passes, the endorsement of STC isthere and that too, only as Court Receiver, and some of the othersdo not bear the endorsement and therefore, there is a seriousdispute with regard to the value of the quantity of goods removed. (g) Learned counsel submitted that it is difficult to believethat the writ petitioner, which is a business firm, should nowcomplain that a commercial transaction should be quashed as void,invoking writ jurisdiction and also seeking refund, when all thesematters must only be proved by evidence. 10. Learned counsel relied on the following decisions :Har Shankar vs. Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, (1975) 1 S.C.C.737; State of Orissa vs. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 740; Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, J.T. 2000(8) S.C. 167; State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Limited, J.T. 2001(9) S.C. 582;Lexicon Finance Limited vs. Union of India, 2002 (3) Arb. LR 60(Karnataka) (DB);NIIT Limited vs. Ashish Deb, 2004 (2) L.W. 244;Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. vs. Bajranglal Agarwal, 2001 (6)Supreme 265; andShree Ram Mills Ltd. vs. Utility Premises (P) Ltd., (2007) 4 S.C.C.59911. Learned senior counsel appearing for MMT submitted that inspiteof a recommendation by the Disinvestment Commission that the fertilizerplant was not financially viable and had to be disposed of, the import https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was made in the year 1999. It was submitted that there were post-importation conditions and Condition No.50 of Notification No.20 of 1999imposes a statutory ban on NLC from parting with or selling the goodswithout prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs and the goodswere sold on an 'as is where is basis', but this impediment, viz. therewas a post-importation condition preventing any sale was deliberatelysuppressed and therefore, this was a fraud which vitiated the contractand rendered it void. It was submitted that it is not correct to statethat without any investment on its own, MMT had used public moneybelonging to STC for this purpose. On the other hand, MMT had alreadyinvested Rs.38.70 Crores, out of which Rs.13.70 Crores were depositedwith NLC and this investment was made almost three years ago. It wassubmitted that the condition that the entire dismantling work had to becarried out within 370 days is an unworkable condition since theactivities could not be carried out without complying with therequirements of law. It was submitted that it was not correct to statethat 75% of the dismantled goods have been removed; actually 75% of thedismantling work alone has been carried out. Learned counsel submittedthat the issue relating to two bank cheques of Rs.75 Crores given to STCis not relevant to this controversy. The issue between MMT and STC isan arbitrable one and it is before the Arbitral Tribunal headed by theformer Chief Justice of India and therefore, that will be decided inaccordance with law. It was explained by the learned senior counsel asto how the scrap was removed and sold, and all the delivery cum gatepasses which have been issued would show the quantity of subject goodswhich have been removed from the premises and from this, the value canbe ascertained and this cannot be a disputed question of fact. Learnedsenior counsel submitted that the very fact that the Customs Authoritieshad issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the ManagingPartner of MMT would show that the authorities are dealing with thegoods as smuggled goods. According to the learned senior counsel, NLChas committed illegality and is now trying to cover up the same. It wassubmitted that it was not necessary for MMT to approach any other forumin view of the unassailable findings rendered by the learned singleJudge on the crucial issues, viz. the fact that the contract is void andthat there was fraud on the part of NLC. Once these findings have beenarrived at, there is no difficulty at quantifying the monetory value ofthe claim of MMT. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted thatthe appeal preferred by MMT should be allowed and monetary relief shouldalso be granted.12. Learned senior counsel relied on A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2105[Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot], A.I.R. 1970 S.C.802 [Gunwant Kaur vs. Bhatinda Municipality] and A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 825[Chaitanya Kumar vs. State of Karnataka] to support his case that evenin exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, it is possible for theCourt to grant the relief, especially when arbitrariness and perversionare writ large. Learned senior counsel also relied on 1989 (39) E.L.T.316 [R.K. Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs & Excise], where it has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been held that once goods are permitted to be cleared with conditions,they will continue to be prohibited goods unless the conditions laidthereto are complied with. The decision in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1321 [AmbaLal vs. Chhagan Lal] was also relied on to show that the contract willbe void not only on account of the fraudulent act, but since it is hitby the law of the land, viz. the Customs Act.13. Learned senior counsel appearing for STC submitted that theadvertisement calling for e-auction did not reveal that the goods wereimported under concessional rate of duty. There was a financialarrangement between MMT and STC. STC got the plant and machinery valuedby a Government approved Valuer and MMT got the plant and machineryvalued by another Valuer upto 27.4.2006 and the scrap of the value ofRs.37,55,64,347/- was received. STC had got the goods inspected by twoof its Senior Directors and it was only after they gave the green signalthat STC decided to involve itself in this matter. According to STC,MMT had committed breach of the MoU and all the cheques were dishonouredby the bankers of MMT. Since as per Section 126 of the Customs Act,goods confiscated vest in favour of the Government of India, NLC had notitle to sell the goods. STC has also alleged that NLC and MMT hadcommitted fraud and that the contract was void ab initio and that NLChad unjustly enriched itself. 14. Learned senior counsel relied on L.S. Synthetics Ltd. vs.Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2004) 1 S.C.C. 456, Allahabad Bankvs. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd., (2004) 8 S.C.C. 236, Naihati Jute Millsvs. Khyaliram, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 522, Bhaurao Paralkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, (2005) 7 S.C.C. 605, I.T.C. Limited vs. George JosephFernandes, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 1, Suwalal Jain vs. Clive Mills Co., 2003A.I.R. S.C.W. 3041 and Union of India vs. Kishorilal Gupta, A.I.R. 1959S.C. 1362. 15. The relevant Sections and Notifications are discussedhereunder. Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows :"23. What considerations and objects are lawful and whatnot.- The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful,unless—it is forbidden by law; oris of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeatthe provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; orinvolves or implies injury to the person or property ofanother; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to publicpolicy.In each of these cases, the consideration or object of anagreement is said to be unlawful.Every agreement of which theobject or consideration is unlawful is void." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 24 deals with void agreements and Section 19 deals with voidablecontracts where free consent is vitiated by fraud.16. Section 2(14) of the Customs Act deals with dutiable goods.Section 2(33) deals with prohibited goods. As per Section 11 of theCustoms Act, the Central Government may by notification in the OfficialGazette prohibit, absolutely or subject to conditions, the import orexport of goods of any specified description. Section 25 deals with thepower to grant exemption from duty, and the Central Government does soif it is satisfied in public interest so to do, by notification in theOfficial Gazette, either absolutely or subject to conditions, goods ofany specific description specified in the notification, from whole orpart of the duty or excise leviable. Section 111 deals withconfiscation of improperly imported goods and Section 125 deals withaction to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.17. The relevant portion of Notification No.20/1999-Customs dated28.2.1999 and the Annexure thereto reads as follows :"Effective rates of customs duty for goods of Chapters 1to 99In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) ofsection 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the CentralGovernment, being satisfied that it is necessary in the publicinterest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the descriptionspecified in column (3) of the Table below or column (3) ofthe said Table read with the relevant List appended hereto, asthe case may be, and falling within the Chapter, heading No.or sub-heading No. of the First Schedule to the Customs TariffAct, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the correspondingentry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported intoIndia – (a) from so much of the duty of customs leviablethereupon under the said First Schedule as is in excess ofthe amount calculated at the rate specified in thecorresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table;(b) from so much of the additional duty leviablethereon under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the saidCustoms Tariff Act, as is in excess of the rate specifiedin the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table,subject to any of the conditions, specified in the Annexure tothis notification, the condition No. of which is mentioned inthe corresponding entry in column (6) of the said Table :Provided that nothing contained in thisnotification shall apply to goods specified against serialNos.174, 175, 176, 177, 178 and 179 of the said Table on orafter the 1st day of April, 2000.Explanation – For the purposes of this notification, the ratespecified in column (4) or column (5), is ad valorem rate,unless otherwise specified." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TABLE---------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Chapter or Description Standard Additional Condition heading No. of goods rate duty rate No. or sub- heading No.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------...... ... ... ... ...142 Any Chapter (A) Machinery, instruments 5% 10% 24 appliances, as well as parts (whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture of aforesaid items and their parts, required for renovation or modernisation of a fertiliser plant; and (B) Spare parts, other raw materials (including semi-finished material) or consumables storse, essential for maintenance of the fertiliser plant mentioned above.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------ANNEXURE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Condition No. Conditions----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... ... 24(1) If an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to Government of India in the Department of Fertilisers, –(i) certifies that the scheme for renovation or modernisationm, as the case may be, of the fertilizer plant has been granted techno-economic clearance by the said Department;(ii) recommends, in each case, the grant of exemption under thisnotification to, –(a) Machinery, instruments, apparatus and appliances, as well as components (whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture of aforesaid items and their components, required forrenovation or modernisation of a fertiliser plant; and (b) spare parts, other raw materials (including semi-finished material) or consumablestores, essential for maintenance of the fertiliser plant mentioned above, (hereinafter referred to as the said goods), for such scheme;and(iii) certifies in each case, that the said goods are, or will be,required for the purposes specified above; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) the value of import of the goods specified in sub-clause (b) ofclause (ii) of sub-condition (1) shall not exceed 10% of the value of imported goods specified in sub-clause (a) of the said clause;(3) if the importer furnishes an undertaking to the AssistantCommissioner of Customs to the effect that the said imported goodsshall be used for the purposes specified above and in the event of his failure to use the goods for such purposes, he shall pay an amount equal to the difference between the duty leviable on the said imported goods but for the exemption under this notification and that already paid at the time of importation.------------------------------------------------------------------------18. It is clear from the above provisions of the Contract Act andthe Customs Act that when it is alleged that fraud vitiates a contract,then the contract becomes voidable and it is for the person allegingfraud to prove it. The ingredients of fraud are mentioned in Section 17of the Contract Act. Therefore, if fraud is the vitiating factor, thenthe contract does not become void ab initio, it is merely voidable andit is for the party who alleges fraud to prove the same.19. In A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2105 [Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. NandlalKhodidas], the Supreme Court has held as follows :"A writ petition under Art. 226, is essentially differentfrom a suit and it would be incorrect to assimilate theincorporate the procedure of a suit into the proceedings of apetition under Article 226. The High Court is not deprived ofits jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226merely because in considering the petitioner's right ofrelief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. In apetition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction totry issues both of fact and law. When the petition raisescomplex questions of fact, which may for their determinationrequire oral evidence to be taken, and on that account theHigh Court is of the view that the dispute should notappropriately be tried in writ petition, the High Court maydecline to try a petition. If, however, on consideration ofthe nature of the controversy, the High Court decides, that itshould go into a disputed question of fact and the discretionexercised by the High Court appears to be sound and inconformity with judicial principles, the Supreme Court wouldnot interfere in appeal with the order made by the High Courtin this respect."20. There are many other decisions to the effect that the Courtcannot fold its hands in the face of rank injustice or arbitrariness andwhen there is no dispute on facts and records are before the Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ merely because the proceedings are one under Article 226, the Courtshall not refrain from granting the relief. There is no quarrel withthis position. In (1975) 1 S.C.C. 737 (supra), the Supreme Court hasheld as follows :"Commercial considerations may have revealed an error ofjudgment in the initial assessment of profitability of theadventure but that is a normal incident of all tradingtransactions. Those who contract with open eyes must acceptthe burdens of the contract along with its benefits. Thepowers of the Financial Commissioner to grant liquor licencesby auction and to collect licence fees through the medium ofauctions cannot by writ petitions be questioned by those who,had their venture succeeded, would have relied upon those verypowers to found a legal claim. Reciprocal rights andobligations arising out of contract do not depend for theirenforceability upon whether a contracting party finds itprudent to abide by the terms of the contract. By such a testno contract could ever have a binding force....The appellants have displayed ingenuity in their searchfor invalidating circumstances but a writ petition is not anappropriate remedy for impeaching contractual obligations.... The writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitateavoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred. That, however,will not estop the appellants from contending that the amendedRules are not applicable as their licences were renewed beforethe amendments were made." In J.T. 2001 (9) S.C. 582 (supra), it was held as follows :"Settled law — Writ is not the remedy for enforcingcontractual obligations. It is to be reiterated that writpetition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings foradjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to therespondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction forappropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled lawthat when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy isopen to the litigant, he should be required to pursue thatremedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affectthe jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but ordinarilythat would be a good ground in refusing to exercise thediscretion under Article 226....Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of theparties with regard to breach of contract are to beinvestigated and determined on the basis of evidence which maybe led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suitrather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuingwrits." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. Now, what are the questions that are disputed here? It is notpossible to go into all the issues which are disputed between theparties, but we will list some of them. 22. According to MMT, Condition No.50, which is contained in theAnnexure to Notification No.20 of 1999, under Serial Number 240,describes the goods as recorded magnetic tapes, CD-ROMs and floppydiskettes imported by the University Grants Commission and that thesegoods shall not be sold or parted with without prior permission of theCommissioner of Customs. On the other hand, the goods in question aredescribed under Serial Number 142 as machinery, instruments, apparatusand appliances, etc. and the condition applicable to them as per theAnnexure is Condition No.24, which only requires the importer to furnishan undertaking that the imported goods shall be used for the purposespecified above and failure to do so would require the importer to paythe differential duty. Therefore, according to NLC, the only conditionimposed on NLC was to 'use' it and it had been used in the plant. Onlythe plant later on was closed because of financial non-viability andtherefore, according to NLC, in fact, when the adjudication by theCustoms Authorities and the DRI is complete, it would be seen that eventhe differential duty need not be paid. There was no bar on the saleand in any event, NLC bona fide was of the opinion that on receipt ofits clarifications, the DRI had dropped further course of action andthat is how NLC proceeded with the e-auction. On the other hand,according to MMT, there was deliberate suppression of the post-importation conditions, which amounts to fraud. According to STC, NLChad no title to sell the goods that were e-auctioned and they hadsuppressed the fact that the goods were imported subject to conditionsand MMT, being an expert in disposal of scrap materials, had induced NLCto suppress the real valuation and there was connivance between NLC andMMT, to deceive STC and induce STC to part with Rs.150 Crores. 23. Next, according to NLC, MMT had entered into a MoU contrary tothe terms of the contract, for which STC had advanced Rs.150 Crores,which was utilised by MMT for making the deposit as sale proceeds. Onthe other hand, according to MMT, the arrangement with STC was purely afinancial arrangement and nothing more. There was no sale and there wasno violation of contract. According to STC, they had bona fide enteredinto the arrangement with MMT after due inspection and they had investeda sum of Rs.150 Crores only on the basis of the valuation given by NLCand with regard to the consideration for the contract entered intobetween MMT and STC, MMT had violated the contract and the cheques hadbeen dishonoured. 24. Next, according to MMT, they could not take steps fordismantling the machinery and plant because for a long time, nothingcould be done because of the conduct of NLC and though notionalpossession was given in May 2005, that is of no avail because of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ non-viability of documents and certain statutory requirements. Whereas,according to NLC, MMT had commenced its dismantling work on 19.5.2005and ought to have completed the entire delivery process within 370 days,i.e. on or before 23.5.2006 and inspite of repeated extension of time,MMT had not dismantled the entire plant and machineries. 25. Next, according to NLC, the entire disbanded fertilizer planthad been sold in situ by STC to MMT and this conduct would show thatthere was collusion and conspiracy. This is denied by MMT and STC.26. Next, a question was raised as to how STC decided to advanceRs.150 Crores based on two valuation reports, both of which indicatedthat the value was above Rs.350 Crores and thus proved the allegation ofcollusion and conspiracy between STC and MMT. Both these contentionsare denied by STC.27. Even with regard to the quantity of goods removed, there isdispute between the parties. 28. Therefore, right from the fact whether there was anything tosuppress at all, there is a dispute amongst the three parties.29. According to NLC, since there was no condition barring sale,there could be no suppression of such a condition. Further, all thefacts were brought to the notice of the DRI at the earliest juncture andsince there was no action, NLC proceeded to bring the properties forsale by e-auction. Perhaps, MMT may be able to produce evidence thatthere was something within the knowledge of NLC at the time of e-auctionwhich they have not produced; but they have actively suppressed it. Ifthat evidence is produced, then the adjudicated authority, whether it isa Court or an Arbitrator, may be able to give a finding on the questionof fraud, since fraud requires the following ingredients :(a) A suggestion of that which is not true by one who does notbelieve it to be true as if it were a fact.(b) Active concealment of a fact by one who has knowledge orbelief of the fact.(c) A promise made by one without any intention of performingit. (d) Any other act which intended to deceive or any act whichthe law specifically declares to be fraudulent.30. The learned single Judge, after extracting Section 17 of theContract Act, has held that a reading of the said section would make itabundantly clear that not only the representation, either oral orwritten, but also the active concealment would constitute fraud and thatin the instant case, the officials of NLC "should have got the clearknowledge". It is clear that the Court had presumed that the officials https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had the knowledge of the vitiating circumstance. On the other hand,according to NLC, since they had addressed a communication to theDepartment, they presumed that there was no duty payable and the e-auction notice was issued bona fide. The question whether this can beaccepted would depend upon the documentary and oral evidence and not onpresumption or merely on the basis of available records. Therefore, thefinding regarding fraud is set aside. This is not to suggest that weare accepting the case of NLC that there was no suppression. We onlyhold that the question whether there was suppression and fraud must beproved by one who alleges fraud; the question of collusion andconspiracy must also be proved by the one who alleges it. These arequestions which have to be proved by adducing evidence.31. The next question is with regard to the violation of theprovisions of the Customs Act. Prohibited goods are those goods whichare prohibited by notification in the official gazette. So, what are"prohibited goods" are known in advance and sometimes, there is absoluteprohibition and sometimes, it is conditional and if those conditions areviolated, then they become prohibited; if these conditions are compliedwith, then the import of goods would not be something impermissible inlaw. Whereas, the goods in question are goods which are importedsubject to conditions. They were given exemption from duty as perSection 25(1) of the Act, but subject to conditions. If the conditionswere violated, they become dutiable goods. It is clear from a readingof the various sections of the Customs Act, as for example, Section 111that the Act deals with "prohibited goods" and "dutiable goods" as twoidentifiable and separate categories. Goods which are dutiable butwhich are exempted from duty subject to conditions cannot becomeprohibited if these conditions are violated; they only become dutiable.Therefore, when it is accepted by both parties that the goods wereimported as per Notification No.20 of 1999, we are unable to seeanything in the relevant clause in the said Notification which persuadesus to come to the conclusion that the goods were prohibited. In fact,Mr. V.T. Gopalan and Mr. P.Wilson would only submit that the authoritiesbe permitted to proceed with the adjudication. In this case, NLC has infact given a bank guarantee for Rs.3 Crores and bond for Rs.23 Crorestowards provisional release of the imported material. 32. As regards the finding that the goods are prohibited, it isclear from Notification No.20 of 1999 that Serial Number 142 deals withmachinery, instruments, apparatus and appliances, as well as parts(whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture ofaforesaid items and their parts, required for renovation ormodernisation of a fertiliser plant, and spare parts, other rawmaterials (including semi-finished material) or consumables stores,essential for maintenance of the fertilizer plant mentioned above. Now,the goods in question are exempt from duty wholly or partially, inexercise of the powers conferred under Section 25(1) of the Act.Therefore, it is clear from this that the import of the goods is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prohibited, but partial or whole exemption from duty is granted subjectto certain conditions. According to NLC, it had complied with theconditions inasmuch as the imported goods were 'used' while revampingthe fertilizer plant. The fact that subsequently a decision was takenbecause of the policy of the Government, which rendered the fertilizerplant unviable, would not justify a conclusion that the conditionsubject to which exemption from duty was granted had been violated. Onthe other hand, it is the case of the DRI that this issue has to beadjudicated upon. As per Section 125 of the Customs Act, if the goodsare not prohibited, then the adjudicating officer shall give to theowner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fineas the officer thinks it fit. It is only when it is a prohibited goodthat the officer has the discretion and it is open to him not to givethe option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Therefore, the findingof the learned Judge that the goods are prohibited is not correct anddeserves to be set aside. In view of the above, the finding that thegoods are prohibited is set aside.33. According to MMT, it has burnt its hands badly by this contractand it is entitled to have its loss recompensed. It is not disputedthat MMT is one of the leading business firm trading in hardware goods,metal and iron scrap, plant and machinery etc. They have entered intothe contract with NLC purely as a business venture. It may be forvarious intervening circumstances that their project misfired. They maybe entitled to some relief, but it has to be established before a forumwhere evidence is let in and issues of facts are decided. In (1996) 5S.C.C. 740 (supra), it was held as follows :"The approach adopted in this decision has to be borne inmind in every such case. It is also to be kept in mind thatwhile the decisions referred to hereinbefore are by smallerBenches, this decision is by a Constitution Bench. A personwho enters into certain contractual obligations with his eyesopen and works the entire contract, cannot be allowed to turnround, according to this decision, and question the validityof those obligations or the validity of the Rules whichconstitute the terms of the contract. The extraordinaryjurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is ofa discretionary nature and is exercised only to advance theinterests of justice, cannot certainly be employed in aid ofsuch persons. Neither justice nor equity is in their favour."In J.T. 2000 (8) S.C. 167 (supra), it was held thus :"The contract between the parties is in the realm ofprivate law. It is not a statutory contract. The disputesrelating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of sucha contract could not have been agitated in a petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration if providedfor in the contract. Whether any amount is due and if so, howmuch and refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified ornot, are not the matters which could have been agitated anddecided in a writ petition."It is a pure question of contract and Article 226 is not the forum wherea decision can be rendered.34. (1985) 3 S.C.C. 267 (Ram and Shyam Company vs. State ofHaryana) was a case where a private deed secretly offered was acceptedand the highest bidder was thrown out. In that case, the Supreme Courtheld that it is not necessary for the party to be sent to avail of thealternate remedy and that even in the writ court, the relief sought forcan be granted. In ABL International Ltd. vs. E.C.G.C. of India Ltd.,109 (2004) Delhi Law Times 415 (SC), the Supreme Court held that in agiven case, it was open to the writ court to give monetary relief also,but that would depend on the facts of the case and where there is nodispute on the factual issues. Here, at every stage, there seems to bea dispute between the parties and not merely minor disputes which areraised only to throw out the writ jurisdiction, but real basic disputes.Therefore, monetary relief cannot be granted in exercise of writjurisdiction.35. The other ground on which the impugned order suffers from anerror is where it holds that because the agreement is void ab initio andthe contract is prohibited by law, the arbitration clause cannot beinvoked. 36. Clause 59 of the agreement entered into between the partiesprovides for arbitration in case of disputes between them and the saidclause reads thus : "Arbitration : In the event of any dispute and / ordifference arising between the Bidder / Purchaser / Buyerand / or their Agent as to the construction, interpretationand / or execution of the contract and / or the respectiverights and liabilities of the parties, such disputes and / ordifferences shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of theChief Executive of the Principal for a Company registeredunder the Companies Act in case of PSU or the Head of theDepartment in case of a Government Department / OrdnanceFactory Board Units / Defence Unit, who may act himself ornominate in his place any Officer subordinate to him or ofMSTC being not below the rank of General Manager / Director inthe Government Department / General Manager in Defence Forces,who shall act as the Sole Arbitrator. The provision of TheArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Rulesthereunder shall apply to such Arbitration. The award passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by such Sole Arbitrator shall be final and shall conclusivelybind all the parties."37. It was contended on behalf of MMT that though the decisionsrelied on by them, as for instance A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1810 (Khardah & Co.vs. Rajunooh & Co.) etc., arose out of the old Arbitration Act, theprinciple that once the contract is void, all clauses are void ab initiois a principle that still holds good. We are afraid, this is not thepresent position of law and this is seen from the following judgments. 38. In 2002 (3) Arb. LR 60 (supra), a Division Bench of theKarnataka High Court held thus :"The Supreme Court in the case of Waverly Jute MillsCompany Limited (supra), relied on by the petitioner's counselin support of his first contention, has held as under :'17. ... if a contract is illegal and void, anarbitration clause which is one of the terms thereof, mustalso perish along with it and that a dispute relating tothe validity of a contract is in such cases for the Courtand not for the Arbitrators to decide...".From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that if theentire contract which contains the arbitration agreement isheld to be void, the arbitration clause in such a voidcontract has no independent existence and therefore thedispute arising between the parties under such void contractcannot be referred to arbitration. The said judgment wasrendered while interpreting the provisions of the ArbitrationAct of 1940. It is seen that the new Arbitration Act has comeinto force. Probably taking note of the law declared by theSupreme Court, the Parliament in its wisdom has tried toremedy the situation by enacting Section 16(1) of the new Act.It will be appropriate to reproduce Section 16 of the Act,which reads as follows :'16. Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule onits jurisdiction.- (1) The Arbitral Tribunal may rule onits own jurisdiction ruling on any objections with regardto the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement,and for the purpose - (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of acontract shall be treated as an agreement independent ofthe other terms of the contract; and(b) a decision by the Arbitral Tribunal that thecontract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure theinvalidity of the arbitration clause."A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear thatan arbitration clause in an agreement shall be treated anagreement independent of other terms of the contract and evenif the Arbitral Tribunal were to hold that the contract is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ null and void, it shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity ofthe arbitration clause. In other words, even if the contractis held to be void, the clause regarding arbitration found ina void contract would not become void. It existsindependently of the said contract and it could be enforced.Therefore, in the light of the statutory provision, thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is notapplicable and the above case is not helpful to the facts ofthe given case and the argument has no substance. However,this Court cannot go into the question of fact and further,the Arbitrator has already decided the issue."In 2004 (2) L.W. 244 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has heldthus :"Though the respondents/plaintiffs have challenged thevalidity of the agreement on the ground that a fraud wasplayed on them, the same also can be gone into by thearbitrator in view of powers given under Sec.16 of the Act.This aspect was not considered by the learned Judge whilerejecting the Application filed under Sec.8 of the Act by theappellant/defendant., Hence, we are inclined to interferewith the order passed by the learned Judge."39. In 2001 (6) Supreme 265 (supra), it was held that the arbitraltribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has the power torule on its own jurisdiction even when no objection with respect to theexistence or validity of the arbitration agreement is raised. In (2007)4 S.C.C. 599 (supra), it was held thus :"Thus, the Chief Justice has to decide about theterritorial jurisdiction and also whether there exists anarbitration agreement between the parties and whether suchparty has approached the court for appointment of thearbitrator. The Chief Justice has to examine as to whether theclaim is a dead one or in the sense whether the parties havealready concluded the transaction and have recordedsatisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations or whetherthe parties concerned have recorded their satisfactionregarding the financial claims. In examining this if theparties have recorded their satisfaction regarding thefinancial claims, there will be no question of any issueremaining. It is in this sense that the Chief Justice has toexamine as to whether there remains anything to be decidedbetween the parties in respect of the agreement and whetherthe parties are still at issue on any such matter. If theChief Justice does not, in the strict sense, decide the issue,in that event it is for him to locate such issue and recordhis satisfaction that such issue exists between the parties.It is only in that sense that the finding on a live issue isgiven. Even at the cost of repetition we must state that it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only for the purpose of finding out whether the arbitralprocedure has to be started that the Chief Justice has torecord satisfaction that there remains a live issue in betweenthe parties. The same thing is about the limitation which isalways a mixed question of law and fact. The Chief Justiceonly has to record his satisfaction that prima facie the issuehas not become dead by the lapse of time or that any party tothe agreement has not slept over its rights beyond the timepermitted by law to agitate those issues covered by theagreement. It is for this reason that it was pointed out inthe above para that it would be appropriate sometimes to leavethe question regarding the live claim to be decided by theArbitral Tribunal. All that he has to do is to record hissatisfaction that the parties have not closed their rights andthe matter has not been barred by limitation. Thus, where theChief Justice comes to a finding that there exists a liveissue, then naturally this finding would include a findingthat the respective claims of the parties have not becomebarred by limitation."In M/s. S.B.P. & Co. vs. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., J.T. 2005 (9) S.C.219, the Supreme Court held as follows :"Section 16 of the Act only makes explicit what is evenotherwise implicit, namely, that the arbitral tribunalconstituted under the Act has the jurisdiction to rule on itsown jurisdiction, including ruling on objections with respectto the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.Sub-section (1) also directs that an arbitration clause whichforms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreementindependent of the other terms of the contract. It alsoclarifies that a decision by the arbitral tribunal that thecontract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure theinvalidity of the arbitration clause....When the Tribunal decides these two questions, namely,the question of jurisdiction and the question of exceeding thescope of authority or either of them, the same is open toimmediate challenge in an appeal, when the objection is upheldand only in an appeal against the final award, when theobjection is overruled."40. (2004) 11 S.C.C. 456 (supra) was relied on by the learnedsenior counsel appearing for STC to contend that the Court had theresponsibility to direct restoration and recovery of properties ormoney. This was to show that even in the writ petition, the learnedsingle Judge could have granted the monetary relief. (2004) 8 S.C.C.236 (supra) was relied on to show that the law of restitution must beinvoked when there is unjust enrichment. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 522 (supra)was relied on and this deals with the impossibility of performance of acontract. (2005) 7 S.C.C. 605 (supra) was relied on to show the effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of fraud on proceedings and (1989) 2 S.C.C. 1 was relied on to show thatone who knowingly enters into a contract with improper object cannotenforce his rights thereunder. 2003 A.I.R. S.C.W. 3041 was also reliedon to show that the dispute relating to the legal validity of anarbitration agreement can be determined only by a Court and not by anArbitrator.41. We have disagreed with the findings of the learned single Judgethat the goods are prohibited goods. We have also held that thequestion whether there was fraud must be decided only by a court offact. If there is fraud, Section 19 of the Contract Act will come intoplay, which deals with voidable contracts. Therefore, assuming thatfraud is proved, the contract only becomes voidable and not void abinitio. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that thecontract is void ab initio is also erroneous. The question whetherthere is unjust enrichment or whether NLC had knowingly entered into acontract which was incapable of being performed are all matters whichcan be decided only by adducing evidence. In view of the decisionscited above, even if the contract is void, the arbitral clause does notbecome void in any circumstance, and the parties would have to go beforethe arbitrator, who will decide whether the contract has become void. 42. In view of the fact that the disputed questions of fact cannotbe gone into by this Court, the monetary relief was rightly declined bythe learned single Judge and the finding of the learned single Judge is,therefore, confirmed. 43. For all the reasons stated above, W.A. No.1488 of 2007 isallowed and W.A. Nos.1502 and 1562 of 2007 are dismissed. The partiesshall invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement and have thedisputes resolved in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1, 1 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarab To1.Union of India,Rep. by its Secretary,Ministry of Coal and Mines,Central Secretariat,New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.State Trading Corporation of India Limited,Having its Registered Office at No.1,Toistory Marketing, New Delhi-3.3.Metal Scrap Trading Corporation(A Govt. of India Enterprise),'Ranka Chambers',31, First Floor, Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.4.The Director,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,No.25, Gopalakrishna Iyer Road,T. Nagar, Chennai-17.5. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited(A Govt. of India Enterprise),Disposal Wing, Marketing Branch,Card Complex, Office of the Deputy General Manager,Chemical Units, Neyveli-607 807.6.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited,Having its Registered Office at'Neyveli House', rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units,135, Periyar E.V.R. High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-10.1 cc To Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, Advocate, SR.17890.3 cc To M/s.N.a.Sarma, Advocate, SR.17870.2 cc To M/s.S.Umapathy, Advocate, SR.18060.3 cc To M/s.Murthi & Vasan, Advocate, SR.18279.W.As.1488, 1502 & 1562 of 2007 KSK(CO)RVL 10.04.2008