Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for challenges to an Arbitral Award, affirming that post-judgment claims of fraud among parties cannot be revisited in a separate civil suit.

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. Filing of the present suit by the plaintiff herein is a classic case of abuse of the process of law. Having exhausted all the remedies as available under the law, the present suit has been filed seeking to re- litigate the issues already adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitral Award which has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, on a ground of fraud not upon the Court but by the officials of the plaintiff itself. The issue which is before me is: Can a “suit” be maintainable to declare an Arbitral Award a nullity. In my view, if this is allowed, then the very purpose and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) will be rendered infructuous/otiose.

2. The present suit filed by the plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs:-

“a) To pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to declare and hold that the Addendum No. 2 dated 20.11.2008 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is vitiated by fraud and tainted by corruption and is thus void ab initio;

b) Pass a decree of declaration to declare that the Award dated 12.05.2014 passed by the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration in ICC Arbitration Reference 18968/CYK titled as Anglo-American Coal Metallurgical Coal Pty Limited versus MMTC Limited is obtained/tainted by fraud as it is based on the Addendum No. 2 dated 20.11.2008, which itself is void ab initio and thus the Award dated 12.05.2014 itself is void and unenforceable and is liable to be set aside;

c) Pass a decree of declaration to declare and set aside the Award dated 12.05.2014 and all/any consequential orders based on the said Award on the ground that the Award is obtained/tainted by fraud and/or was vitiated by the acts of corruption of the Defendants in securing the Plaintiff’s consent to enter into the Addendum No.2 dated 20.11 .2008;

d) To pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,95,29,612/- (Rupees Eight Crores Ninety-Five Lakhs Twenty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve Only) along with interest @ 18% per annum calculated from the date of commencement of cause of action i.e. 16.08.2022 till date of its realization;

e) To pass a decree of Permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, its legal heirs, successors, legal representatives, administrators, executors, nominees and assigns or anybody acting on their behalf, thereby restraining the Defendants from acting/ relying upon the Addendum No.2 dated 20.11.2008 and the Award dated 12.05.2014 in any manner whatsoever;”

BREIF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT

3. The plaintiff is a Central/Public Sector Enterprise, the entire shareholding is held by the Central Government. The plaintiff is under the pervasive control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Amongst other things, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of export and import of mineral ores and essential metals whereas the defendant No. 1 is the international supplier of the coking coal.

4. In the year 2003, the plaintiff approached the defendant No. 1 for supply of coking coal. On 07.03.2007, the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1 entered into an Long Term Agreement (“LTA”) for the supply of hard coking coal intended for use by Neelachal