2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MMTC LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ANGLO-AMERICAN METALLURGICAL PTY LIMITED AND ORS & ANR. – Respondent
RFA(OS)(COMM)-28/2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 04th December 2025
Pronounced on : 24th December 2025 Uploaded on : 24th December 2025
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2025 & CM APPL. 58424/2025, CM APPL.
58425/2025, CM APPL. 58426/2025
MMTC LIMITED
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. AJIT TOPPO,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
CORE 1, SCOPE COMPLEX,
7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110003. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Mr. Sangram Singh & Ms. Kashish
Maheshwari, Advs.
versus
1. ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL PTY LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
GROUND FLOOR, 201 CHARLOTTE STREET,
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND-4000,
AUSTRALIA.
2. MR. RODNEY HAROLD ELLIOTT
GENERAL MANAGER MARKETING AND
TRANSPORTATION
ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL
COAL PTY LIMITED
201 CHARLOTTE STREET, BRISBANE 4000 AUSTRALIA GPO BOX 1410 BRISBANE 4001 AUSTRALIA.
3. MR. JOHN WILCOX MARKETING MANAGER ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LIMITED
201 CHARLOTTE STREET, BRISBANE 4000 AUSTRALIA GPO BOX 1410 BRISBANE 4001 AUSTRALIA.
4. MR. VED PRAKASH S/O SHRI PARAMA RAM R/O BF-63, BF BLOCK, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058.
5. MR. SURESH BABU S/O SHRI K.K. DAMODARAN C/O MR. K.S. ANIL, 33/2682-B (GVRRA 67), SHASTRI LANE, PONNURUNNI ROAD, EAST PONNURUNNI, VYTILLA P.O., KOCHI-682019.
6. MR. H.S. MANN S/O SHRI AJIT SINGH MANN R/O F-108, SECTOR-58, NOIDA-201301, U.P.
7. MR. SANJIV BATRA S/O SHRI L.N. BATRA R/O S-288, GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI-110048.
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Mr. Sumeet Kachwaha, Ms. Ankit Khushu, Ms. Akanksha Mohan & Mr. Pratyosh Khanna, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal assails judgment dated 29th July 2025 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in CS(COMM) 959/2025. By the said impugned judgment, the plaint filed by appellant/plaintiff was rejected by the Court, while exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). Brief factual background
2. Appellant/plaintiff is a Public Sector Undertaking under the control of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, engaged in the business of export and import of mineral ores and essential metals.
3. Respondent no.1/defendant No.1 is an international supplier of coking coal.
4. On 07th March 2007, appellant/plaintiff entered into a Long-Term Agreement (‘LTA’) with respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 for supply of hard coking coal to be used by Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited (‘NINL’), in which appellant/plaintiff held 49.78% shares. LTA envisioned three one-year delivery periods starting on 01st July 2004 and ending on 30th June 2007. By virtue of Clause 1.3 of LTA, appellant/plaintiff had the option to extend the LTA for two more delivery periods through mutually executed addendum based on mutually agreed price and quantity.
5. On 28th June 2007, Addendum No.1 was executed between the parties for the period 01st July 2007 to 30th June 2008, extending the arrangement to a fourth delivery period.
6. Addendum No.2 was executed on 20th November 2008, extending the LTA to the fifth delivery period from 01st July 2008 to 30th June 2009. Under this Addendum, a fixed price of US$ 300 per Metric Tonne (‘MT’) was stipulated for a contracted quantity of 466,000 MT. This addendum forms the crux of the dispute between the parties.
7. Appellant/plaintiff alleges that price of US$ 300 per MT was arbitrarily and fraudulently determined through collusion between appellant/plaintiff’s key managerial personnel, i.e. defendant Nos.4-7 and representatives of defendant No.1, i.e. defendant Nos.2-3, at a time when the global coal prices were significantly lower due to the 2008 global economic downturn.
8. Appellant/plaintiff contended that the said Addendum was obtained by fraudulent means and was opposed to public policy as the acts and omissions of the conspiring defendants amounted to commission of criminal offence under the Prevention of Corrup