M. A. ZAHID vs JINDAL SAW LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 4th August, 2025 + O.M.P. (COMM) 114/2023 M. A. ZAHID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Navin Kumar and Ms. Rashmeet Kaur, Advocates. versus JINDAL SAW LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Preeti Goel, Mr. Anubhav Goel, Ms. Rashmi Mishra, Mr. Siddarth Jain, Ms. Lavanya Pathak and Ms. Priyanka Dhyani, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) laying a challenge to arbitral award dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. 2. Factual matrix to the extent relevant is that Petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. SMSK Minerals Trading Company and is engaged in supply of iron ore to the Respondent in Karnataka for the last several years. During 06.01.2011 and 01.02.2011, Respondent desired to procure about 44,000 MT of iron ore for a total value of Rs.16,11,60,000/- and had paid the said amount to the Petitioner at the time of placing the said purchase orders. Pursuant to the said arrangement between the parties, Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 114/2023 Page 1 of 23 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:05.08.2025 19:24:55 supplied iron ore worth Rs.8,94,42,415/- to the Respondent by 31.05.2011 and balance quantity, as averred in the petition, was to be supplied in due course. 3. It is stated that by the Petitioner that pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court dated 07.09.2012 in SLP (C) No. 562/2009 in case titled ‘Samaja Parivartan Samudaya & Others v. State of Karnataka’, investigations were carried out by Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) against several persons including the Petitioner