[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited vs Chhattisgarh Mineral Development ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12398-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 9 of 2023
M/s Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited A Company Registered Under
Companies Act 1956/2013, Having Its Registered Office At Industrial Ward,
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Mr.
Ashol Agrawal Aged About 60 Years, S/o Sri Vidya Sagar Agrawal, 7-5-84/35,
Flat No. 301, Pine Wood, Jasti Square Apartments, Beach Road, Beside
Panduranga Puram, Visakhapatanam (Urban) Through Its Power Of Attorney
Holder Chandra Dewangan, Aged About 32 Years S/o Shri Parmeshwar
Dewangan, R/o Rd-8, Anjani Vihar, Chantidih, Dabri Para, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited A Company
Resgistered Under Companies Act, 1956/2013 And Having Its Registered
Office At Sector-24, Office Block-7a, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh Through Its Managing Director.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Manoraj Singh, Mr. Rahul
Ambast and Mr. Shotabdi Bagchi,
Advocates
For Respondent/CMDC : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along
VED
PRAKASH with Mr. Ankit Singhal, Ms. Jasleen K.
DEWANGAN Gulati, and Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
legality, validity and propriety of the memo/order dated 23.06.2022
issued by the respondent - Chhattisgarh Mineral Development
Corporation Limited (CMDC), whereby the petitioner has been directed
to deposit an additional amount of Rs.3,68,05,847/- (Rupees Three
Crores Sixty Eight Lacs Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven only)
towards the alleged difference between the final and escalated value of
iron ore pursuant to the agreement dated 14.06.2021 executed between
the parties. The petitioner has assailed the said demand primarily on the
ground that while determining the revised final price of iron ore, the
respondent has taken into consideration the Wholesale Price Index
(WPI) of the Financial Year 2021-2022, whereas in terms of Clause 12
of the agreement, the WPI applicable for the current financial year i.e.
2022-2023 ought to have been applied. According to the petitioner, the
adoption of the WPI of the earlier financial year has resulted in an
arbitrary and inflated demand, thereby rendering the impugned
memo/order dated 23.06.2022 unsustainable in law.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming for the following
reliefs:-
"10.1) The That the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to be set aside the order dated
23/06/2022 issued by the Respondent with all
consequential reliefs and further be pleased to
direct the Respondent for considering WPI in the
Year under consideration i.e. WPI of last month
published by the Office of The Economic Advisor,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Department for Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade shall be taken as base for the
assessment of revised Final Price Offer for the
month under consideration. For example, for the
calculation of revised Final Price Offer for the
month of October 2022, the WPI published in the
month of October 2022 for the month of
September 2022 shall be taken as base.
10.2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted
to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
10.3) That Cost of the Petition may also be kindly
granted to the Petitioner."
3. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that in view of the dispute resolution mechanism
provided under Clause 20(v) of the Agreement dated 14.06.2021, which
stipulates settlement of disputes through arbitration, the petitioner may
be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail
appropriate remedy in accordance with the said arbitration clause.
4. Considering the aforesaid submission and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is dismissed
as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the
remedy available under Clause 20(v) of the Agreement by initiating
appropriate arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.
5. Consequently, the interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. No
order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
