M/S Marshall Industries vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 372 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Marshall Industries vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 9 May, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                       2025:JHHC:14277




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                  C.M.P. No. 239 of 2025

            M/S Marshall Industries
            Birla Bhandar, Village- Nadia, P.O. + P.S. - Lohardaga, District
            Lohardaga, Represented through Shri Satish Kumar Dalmia,
            Partner/Joint Holder of above firm residing At B-202, Estate Esquire-
            II, Phase-2, Chesire Home Road, Deepatoli, Ranchi Pin Code-
            834009, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi
                                                         ...     ...      Petitioner
                                       Versus
            1. M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd,
                Ispat Bhawan, P.S. + P.S. Lodhi Road,
                District South Delhi, New Delhi- 110003.
            2. The Branch Manager,
                M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
                Branch Sales Office, CMO Complex,
                M.G. Road, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. + P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist.
                Bokaro Steel City, Pin Code- 827001
                                                    ...       ...       Opp. Parties
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar Dalmia, in-person For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Puja Agrawal, Advocate

---

03/09.05.2025 Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Dalmia, the petitioner appearing in-

person.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is also present.

3. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"For recall of the order dated 9.05.2023, of this Hon'ble High Court, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose the Arbitration appeal No. 3 of 2009 by allowing claim of interest on the portion of EMD which was already refunded to the claimant as per law and directed the Petitioner to take up the matter of refund of 50% of Rs. 1,30,002/-( Under the Head of Sales Tax Refund) with Respondent. Also this Hon'ble Court disallowed the other Claims of petitioner on Interest on Penalty, Interest on Delayed Payments, Interest on Sales Tax Refunds and refused to interfere the Arbitral Award dated 20.04.2005 passed by the Sole Arbitrator and refused to interfere with the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Court of the Sub-Judge -II, Lohardaga in Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 2005 on other main Claims of petitioner on Interest on Penalty, Interest on Delayed Payments, Interest on Sales Tax Refunds, 2025:JHHC:14277

and Damages (u/s. 73 of Contract Act, 1872). That this Hon'ble Court has not given any order on the main Claim of Petitioner i.e. DAMAGES (u/s. 73 of Contract Act, 1872)."

4. The petitioner appearing in-person has submitted that the Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009 was decided by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2023 and the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the SLP on the ground of limitation. He submits that a review petition was also filed which was also dismissed.

5. The petitioner in-person has further submitted that during the pendency of the review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he had filed an application under Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act') before the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Bokaro Circle, inter alia, seeking information as to when the amount was ultimately received by the respondent in connection with Purchase Tax Exemption Form 'C' but unfortunately the information could be furnished only after the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain review.

6. He submits that the present petition has been filed seeking recall of the judgment passed by this Court in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009 on the basis of the information received under RTI Act which has been placed on record at Annexure- P/30 to this civil miscellaneous petition. He has in particular referred to the information furnished under column (g) and (h).

7. The petitioner appearing in-person submits that fraud has been committed upon the petitioner and therefore, in spite of dismissal of SLP, the present petition seeking recall of the judgment dated 09.05.2023 is maintainable.

8. He has referred to paragraph 17 of the judgment dated 09.05.2023 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009 to submit that before this Court the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that he was not aware as to whether the respondents had succeeded in getting the refund from the department, although by that time the refund was already received by the respondent.

2025:JHHC:14277

9. The petitioner in-person has also submitted that the refund was received by the respondent as back as in the year 2011 but the respondents did not do the needful to give the amount to the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner is entitled for the amount and also interest thereon. The petitioner in-person has further submitted that in the arbitral award dated 20.04.2005, it has been clearly held that the petitioner would be entitled for the amount immediately after the amount is received by the respondents.

10. The petitioner in-person has submitted that additional ground for recall of the judgment dated 09.05.2023 has been taken through interlocutory application filed in this case, inasmuch as, the respondents had also made incorrect submissions before the arbitral tribunal.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the nature of relief and the grounds on which relief has been prayed is not maintainable before this Court. She has submitted that the petitioner is trying to reopen the entire matter in the garb of a petition seeking recall of the order. She has also submitted that the arbitration appeal was filed before this court in the year 2009 and the judgment itself is clear that as per the award the claimant was to claim balance 50% of Rs. 2,60,004/- on account of sales tax from the respondent depending upon the result of the cases filed by the respondent with the sales tax authorities. It has also been held that the claimant may take up the matter with the respondent for payment of the balance amount of 50% of Rs. 2,60,004/-. She submits that instead of availing the remedy which has already been mentioned in paragraph 57 of the judgment dated 09.05.2023 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009, the petitioner is trying to make out a case of fraud and seeking recall of the judgement which has attained finality up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. In response, the petitioner in person has submitted that he has already represented before the respondents in terms of paragraph 57 of

2025:JHHC:14277

the judgment sought to be recalled, but the respondents have not yet responded and therefore, he has filed the present petition.

13. After hearing the petitioner in-person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and after going through the materials which have been pointed out by the petitioner in-person, this Court finds that petitioner has filed this petition on the basis of certain information received from the Sales Tax Department under RTI Act in order to submit that the amount of sales tax has already been received by the respondents, but they are not giving the refund to the petitioner in terms of the award and also the judgment passed by this Court on 09.05.2023 in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009. Further, fraud has been alleged by stating that it was wrongly submitted before this Court that the learned counsel for the respondents had no idea as to whether the respondents had ultimately succeeded in getting the refund from the department or not.

14. This Court finds that numerous questions are put to the counsels who are appearing during court proceedings and at times they are not able to respond to the Court either on account of lack of instructions with respect to particular question and answer to such question is not available from the materials available on record. This court finds that in paragraph 17 of judgment dated 09.05.2023 in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009, the learned counsel for the respondents had merely submitted that he was not aware as to whether the respondents had ultimately succeeded in getting the refund from the department. However, at the same time he had also stated that there was no legal bar for the claimant to approach the respondents with regard to the balance amount. In paragraph 57 also, a clear indication was given that the claimant may take up the matter with the respondents for payment of the balance amount of 50% of Rs. 2,60,004/-, but the petitioner is alleging fraud by not only stating that incorrect statements have been made before this Court, but also by stating that incorrect statements were made before the learned arbitral tribunal also. This court is not satisfied with the reasons cited by the petitioner in person seeking recall of the judgement dated 09.05.2023

2025:JHHC:14277

in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009 and is of the view that no ground of fraud, mis-statement etc has been made out for recall of the judgment.

15. This Court is of the view that no grounds has been made out for even prima facie observing that any fraud has been committed and no ground for recall on the points raised by the petitioner has been made out. This court is also of the view that merely because 50% amount has not been paid to the petitioner in spite of filing representation in terms of paragraph 57 of the judgment under review dated 09.05.2023 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009, the same itself cannot be a reason to entertain the present civil miscellaneous petition.

16. Accordingly, this CMP is hereby dismissed.

17. Pending interlocutory applications are closed.

18. However, dismissal of this petition will not be an impediment in the way of the petitioner to seek his remedies in terms of paragraph 57 of the judgment dated 09.05.2023 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 3 of 2009.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj