IMPORTANT POINT
Objection to execution of decree – Objection petition under Section 47 of CPC should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial.

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment dated 09.05.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) No. 19 of 2018. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the objections filed by the appellant-MMTC Limited [for short “MMTC”] under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] as well as an application under Order XXI Rule 29 of CPC seeking stay of the enforcement proceedings. The High Court further directed that the amount deposited by MMTC shall be withdrawn by the decree holder-Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Limited [for short “the Anglo”] along with the interest accrued. Aggrieved, the appellant-MMTC is in appeal by way of special leave.

BRIEF FACTS:-

3. The respondent-Anglo, on 24.09.2012, invoked the arbitration clause in the Long Term Agreement [LTA] dated 07.03.2007 entered into between MMTC and Anglo. The claim in the arbitration was for damages on account of the unlifted quantity of coal contracted by the appellant-MMTC. The damages were computed based on the difference in the price between the contracted price of US$ 300 Per Metric Tonne [for short “PMT”] and the market price of US$ 126 PMT, multiplied by the unlifted quantity. In the arbitration, by an Award dated 12.05.2014, Anglo was awarded a sum of US$ 78.720 million along with interest and costs by a majority of 2:1.

4. By a judgment dated 10.07.2015, challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short ‘the A&C Act’] failed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. However, the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 02.03.2020, allowed MMTC’s appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act and set aside the arbitral Award along with the decision of the learned Single Judge. By a judgment of 17.12.2020, this Court allowed the Civil Appeal filed by Anglo and after setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the arbitral Award.

5. On 29.07.2021, a review petition filed by MMTC, which was admitted on the limited issue of interest, was disposed of by reducing the pendente lite and future interest to 6%. The remaining findings were not disturbed. On 19.04.2022, a clarification application filed by MMTC was disposed of by clarifying that MMTC would be liable to pay interest @ 6% from the date of reference till the date of payment and for the period from the date of breach till the date of reference, interest was to be paid @ 7.5%.

6. In the meantime, the respondent filed Execution Petition seeking enforcement of the Award. Post the disposal of the clarification application, on 20.07.2022, MMTC deposited a sum of Rs.1,087/- crores with the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. On 28.11.2022, E.A. No. 3728 of 2022 in the Execution Petition was filed by MMTC seeking to stay the operation and implementation of the Award till the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] concludes its investigation into the matter. It transpires that on 02.09.2022 and 23.11.2022, complaints were filed by MMTC against persons including its erstwhile employees alleging fraud and collusion with the respondent in relation to the price fixed for coal for the 5th Delivery Period. On 09.01.2023, the CBI, it transpires registered a preliminary enquiry.

7. When the matter stood thus, on 10.01.2024, MMTC filed its objections under Section 47 of the CPC. In the objections, the primary contentions of MMTC were:-

7.1 Despite having complete knowledge of the recession in the market due to the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, the officials of MMTC in collusion and conspiracy with the officials of Anglo contracted the price of coal for the 5th delivery period at US$ 300 PMT. This price was 3 times more than the price of US$ 96.40 PMT which prevailed during the 4th delivery period.

7.2 Viewed in the background of the fact that Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd (for short the “NINL”) for whom the c