In a scathing takedown of legal maneuvering, the Delhi High Court slammed a Central government-run PSU for attempting to revive a long-dead dispute, calling it nothing short of an abuse of legal process.
The culprit? Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation of India (MMTC), which tried to launch a fresh civil suit in the hope of toppling an arbitral award—one already stamped and sealed by none other than the Supreme Court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, refusing to entertain what he termed a cleverly disguised challenge, delivered a blunt message: “Courts must strike down legal creativity that masquerades as legitimate recourse. Arbitration is not a revolving door.”
MMTC’s suit sought to upend a 2014 arbitral ruling by the International Chamber of Commerce, which held it liable for breaching a coal supply contract with Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd (AAMC). The deal had turned sour after MMTC failed to honor its commitment to lift 4.54 lakh metric tonnes of coal at a fixed rate of $300 per MT, a price it now says was absurd during the 2008 financial crisis.
But that ship had long sailed—the Supreme Court had already upheld the arbitral award in 2020 and turned down MMTC’s review and clarification pleas. So when the PSU came knocking at the High Court’s door in 2025 with a civil suit based on “newly discovered fraud,” it didn’t find much sympathy.
The court dismissed the case outright, invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which offers a narrow path—and a narrow path only—for setting aside an arbitral award. That path, the Court reminded, doesn’t include filing a civil suit dressed up in new allegations.
“Allowing this suit would be an invitation to endless litigation,” Justice Singh observed, calling MMTC’s attempt a textbook example of relitigating resolved issues. “It’s a last-ditch effort disguised as a fresh grievance.”
The dispute traces back to a long-term agreement signed in 2007 and modified later through Addendum 2. MMTC claimed in court that this addendum was signed under a fraudulent conspiracy involving its own officials and those of AAMC, leading to an inflated coal deal that allegedly cost taxpayers around ₹1,000 crore. A complaint, it said, had been filed with the CBI, which is currently investigating.
The Court, however, saw through the narrative. It noted that despite framing the suit as a plea for declaration, damages, and injunction, MMTC’s true aim was to re-fight the arbitration battle it had already lost. “If this suit is allowed, there’s no stopping any losing party from coming back with a new story,” the court warned.
The verdict was unequivocal: the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
On the legal battlefield, senior advocates fought from both camps—Harish Salve led MMTC’s charge, while Jayant Mehta defended AAMC. MMTC’s former officials also joined the fray with their own legal team. But in the end, the High Court refused to be a playground for post-verdict reinventions.
In short: the judiciary sent a loud message—arbitration is not a game of infinite innings. Once it’s over, it’s over.
