Delhi High Court · 2026-05-20
MMTC LIMITED vs M/S KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE & ANR.
- Citation / case number
- FAO(OS) (COMM)-109/2026 2026:DHC:4456-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- MMTC LIMITED
- Respondent
- M/S KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE & ANR.
Judgment text excerpt
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 14.05.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.05.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.05.2026 + FAO(OS)(COMM) 109/2026 MMTC LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Ms. Shweta Pattnaik, Ms. Babita Rawat, Ms. Kashish Maheshwari and Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Advs. versus M/S KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Manali Singhal, Mr. Santosh Sachin, Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat and Ms. Tarini Khurana, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1996’] seeks to set-aside the Impugned Judgment dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Single Bench (SB), whereby the view of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) to refuse to set off the payments to be payable by the Appellant to East Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:20.05.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 109/2026 Page 1 of 8 16:43:27 Coast Railways (ECR), came to be upheld. 2. Pursuant to an agreement between the Appellant and Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) for supply of non-coking steam coal at three Thermal Power Stations (TPS) of DVC, the parties herein vide Tripartite Agreement dated 01.08.2012, agreed to supply 1.119 MMT of non-coking steam coal in bulk to the aforementioned TPSs. While Respondent No.1, under the Agreement, was to arrange stevedoring, handling, storage, port clearances, railways rakes, loading, transportation and delivery to the TPS, the Respondent No.2, being an overseas supplier of coal, was bestowed the duty of supplying coal to the Appellant at Paradip,