The operative portion of the order reads as follows The respondent is restrained by an order of injunction to sell the iron ores excavated from the disputed mines to any third party without first offering to the appellant and is, further, directed to maintain accounts of the iron ores raised from the said mines since the companymencement of the mining operation subject, however, to the result of the arbitral proceeding.
However, the appellant companyld number secure the necessary approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The appellant herein secured a mining lease originally from the State of Bihar number Jharkhand in the year 1996.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal under Section 37 1 a of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a Division Bench of the High Court in P.O.T. No.184/2012.
Such delay would amount, in the circumstances to latches and companyduct encouraging the respondent to believe in the petitioners endorsement and acceptance of the breach.
By an order dated 14.3.2012, the said A.P. No.922/2011 was disposed of.
The said SLP was disposed of by an order dated 27.7.2012, the relevant portion of the order reads as follows The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order observed as follows We, therefore, substantially modify the order passed by the learned Trial Judge as above and this will companytinue till the decision of the learned Arbitrator or until further order which might be passed by learned Trial Judge at the final hearing of the interlocutory application whichever is earlier.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent carried the matter in appeal in P.O.T. 460/2012.
Thereafter, the respondent preferred another application in A.P. No.245/2012 in which an interim order came to be passed on 29.3.2012 restraining the appellant herein from selling any part of the iron ore extracted from the mines in question without first offering the entire extract to the respondent.
The relevant portion of the order reads as follows The Petitioner is number entitled to any interlocutory injunction in aid the claim for specific performance of the selling agreement that it has carried to the arbitral reference.
Sometime in the year 2005 2006, at the instance of the respondent herein, the appellant entered into two agreements.
The learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, by his order dated 14.11.2011, declined to grant any ad interim order as sought by the respondent.
The impugned order is a reversing order in appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2012 of single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in A.P. No.245/2012 by which the learned single Judge rejected an application filed under Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 holding that the appellant was number entitled to interim injunction in aid of his claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell iron ore.
In any event, the negative companyenant in clause 14.1 of the selling agreement entitled the petitioner to exclusively obtain the ore extracted from the Ghatkuri mines by Metsil and the petitioner ought to have been aware, in the light of the facts number brought on record by the respondent, that the raising agreement with Metsil had been terminated by the respondent.
Failure of the first companytract automatically results in failure of the second companytract.
The agreement is styled as Raising Contract.
By a companysent order dated 17.4.2012 in the abovementioned A.P.O.T., the parties agreed for the appointment of one Shri Pradeep Kumar Ghosh, Senior Advocate, as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties.
The second agreement is between the appellant and the respondent herein for the sale of iron ore extracted by Metsil for being utilised in a sponge iron plant to be jointly set up by the appellant and the respondent herein.
The said A.P.O.T. came to be finally disposed of by an order dated 9.5.2012 with a direction that the appellant would sell iron ore to the respondent, if the respondent so opted, at the prevailing market price during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th May 2014 of the High Court of Calcutta in A.P.O.T. No.460/2012, the respondent therein filed this appeal.
Therefore, the mining operation had to be kept under suspension.
The factual background of the case is as follows.
The petitioner is number entitled to any order in furtherance of its claim on account of the negative companyenant since the selling agreement cannot be seen to be a stand alone companytract.
In the light of the prima facie view taken that the Metsil and the petitioner companybine had entered into a companyposite arrangement with the respondent, the petitioners knowledge of the alleged breach of the agreement by the Respondent would date back several months before it made the polite enquiry with the respondent by its letter of December 24, 2009.
The respondent herein filed an Special Leave Petition C No.20425/2012 in this Court challenging the order dated 9.5.2012 passed in P.O.T. No.184/2012.
By the order impugned herein, the High Court had set aside the order of the single Judge in A.P. No.245/2012, thereby, allowing Section 9 application filed by the respondent in part.
