AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
From the submissions made both by Mr. Manas Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), it is apparent that there are highly disputed questions of fact regarding the supplies of quantities of chrome ore by the OMC to the Petitioner in terms of the order dated 11th March 2019 passed by this Court which in turn was consequent upon the order dated 13th September, 2012 of the Supreme Court of India.
The further fact that requires to be accounted for is that the dispute commenced some time in 2003 regarding quantities of chrome to be supplied, whereas now we are in 2022. The further question is whether the Petitioner can legitimately insist on supplies of the chrome at the same rates that were mentioned in the order of the Supreme Court?
The Court is of the view that the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not appropriate to address these complex questions of fact which would in turn involve interpretation of the orders of the Supreme Court and this Court. Ideally, they should be attempted to be resolved in a time-bound arbitration.
Both Mr. Mohapatra and Mr. Mohanty seek time to take instructions from the respective parties whether they will be willing to go in for a time-bound arbitration on agreed terms of reference incorporating both the claims and counter claims of the parties.
At their request, list on 21st April, 2022.
……………………….