OMP No. 567/2008

NAFED v. Disha Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.

Page 1 of 5

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 8.9.2009

Date of Order: 15^th September, 2009

OMP No. 567/2008

%

15.09.2009

National Agricultural Cooperative

Marketing Federation of India Ltd.

... Petitioner

Through: None

Versus

Disha Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.

... Respondents

Through: Mr. G.Narayan, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation

Act, 1996 has been made by the petitioner with a prayer that the Court should

restrain respondent from selling, alienating or creating any third party interest in

property no. B-82, Sector-30, NOIDA-201302 (U.P.) and land bearing Survey no.

745 & 752 Village Varvala, Dwarka Taluka of Jamnagar District, Gujarat (Plot

2009:DHC:3875

OMP No. 567/2008

NAFED v. Disha Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.

Page 2 of 5

Area 32+8= 40 Acre). It is also prayed that an order be passed restraining

respondent from selling, disposing of, alienating or creating any third party

interest in iron ore lying at Ballegudi, Karwar (DT), Karnataka and Plota at

Kariganur & Voddarahalli, Hospet, Taluk, Bellary District, Karnataka. The Court

should appoint a receiver to take possession of the iron ore lying at Ballegudi,

Karwar and Palota at Bellary District in Karnataka and allow to sell the iron ore

and to deposit the money so realized with this Court.

2.

The facts as revealed from the petition are that the petitioner

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 10.3.2004 with the

respondent for financing the procurement of iron ore and related commodities for

exporting to China. As per MoU, the petitioner agreed to extend financial

assistance upto Rs.35.75 crore to the respondent for procurement of iron ore for

export purposes. Iron ore was to be procured in the name of the petitioner and

was to remain property of the petitioner. The amount so given was to be paid

back to the petitioner by the respondent on sale of the iron ore.

3.

It is stated by the petitioner that respondent deliberately and

intentionally did not take any step to clear its dues and to honour the agreement.

The respondent executed an Undertaking cum Confirmation dated 11.1.2006

admitting its liability to the tune of Rs.9,30,00,000/- towards the petitioner as on

31.12.2005. The relevant terms and conditions of MoU dated 10.3.2004

regarding procurement of iron ore are as under:

2009:DHC:3875

OMP No. 567/2008

NAFED v. Disha Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.

Page 3 of 5

4.

It is stated by petitioner that after the dispute arose between the

parties the sole Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the MoU and the dispute is

pending before Ms. Justice Sharda Aggarwal, (Retd.). The claim made by the

petitioner before the learned Arbitrator is to the tune of Rs.8,01,57,714.44/- along

with interest. It is stated that the arbitration proceedings are likely to take some

time and the respondent is delaying the arbitral proceedings on one or the other

pretext. It is further stated that the petitioner apprehends that the respondent has

intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the award likely to be made in favour

of the petitioner and may dispose of the properties mentioned in the prayer

clause thereby rendering the award inconsequential. The petitioner in the

petition has submitted that the goods were of perishable nature and are likely to

be damaged if left for long time. It is also submitted that the maintenance of

2009:DHC:3875

OMP No. 567/2008

NAFED v. Disha Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.

Page 4 of 5

huge amount of iron ore in the Stock Yard was resulting into incurring of huge

liability and day-by-day the liabilit