Disposed

Jindal Saw Ltd. v. M a Zahid Proprietor Smsk Mineral Trading Company

Delhi HC13 Aug 2026CONT.CAS(C)/532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with prior arbitration-related orders. The Court held that since the respondent had filed a compliance affidavit before the Arbitrator and arbitral proceedings are concluded, no non-compliance is attributable to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is disposed of.

Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs M a Zahid Proprietor Smsk Mineral Trading Company — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010188312022

¶4

% Date of Decision: 13^th August, 2026

¶5

CONT.CAS(C) 532/2022

¶6

JINDAL SAW LTD. .....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Ms. Preeti Goel, Mr. Anubhav Goel, Ms. Priyanka Dhyani and Ms. Rashmi Mishra, Advs. Mob: 999171441 Email: [email protected]

¶8

versus

¶9

M A ZAHID PROPRIETOR SMSK MINERAL TRADING COMPANY

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

Through: Mr. Navin Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rashmeet Karu and Ms. Varnika Singh, Advs. Mob: 8889955457 Email: [email protected]

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶14

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

¶15

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the orders dated 07^th January, 2022, and 23^rd March, 2022, passed by this Court in ARB.A.(COMM.) 10/2020. The basis of filing the present contempt petition is set out in paragraphs 9 and 12 thereof, which read as under:

Page 1 of 3

“xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

This Court takes note of the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent which is on record before this Court. The said affidavit contains list of assets of the respondent, which was filed by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator.

¶21

The said affidavit has been filed by the respondent in terms of this Court’s order dated 17^th November, 2025, thereby, placing on record the Affidavit dated 25^th May 2022, which was filed before the Arbitrator.

¶22

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that an Affidavit in compliance of the orders dated 07^th January, 2022, and 23^rd March, 2022, was filed by the respondent before the Arbitrator with a delay

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

of 23 days, on 25^th May, 2022.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Affidavit dated 25^th May, 2022, filed before the Arbitrator was not in terms of the directions passed by this Court.

¶26

This Court takes note of the fact that the arbitral proceedings between the parties have already culminated into an Award in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶27

This Court is informed that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), filed on behalf of the respondent herein also stands dismissed.

¶28

Further, this Court is also informed that execution proceedings have also been instituted on behalf of the petitioner before the District Court, Karnataka. However, the same have been stayed by the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad.

¶29

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that no non-compliance of the directions passed by this Court is attributable to the respondent.

¶30

The Affidavit in terms of the orders dated 07^th January, 2022, and 23^rd March, 2022, already stands filed by the respondent before the Arbitrator, the proceedings before whom already stand concluded.

¶31

No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition.

¶32

The present petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶34

AUGUST 13, 2026 /SK

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Jindal Saw Ltd. v. M a Zahid Proprietor Smsk Mineral Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jindal Saw Ltd. v. M a Zahid Proprietor Smsk Mineral Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Singh Vs Govind Mohan and Anr.

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Manmohan Bansal & Ors.

Jai Durge College of Education Vs Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Iofs, Member Secretary, Ncte and Anr.

Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust (Regd) Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. & Ors.

Abhishek Gupta Vs Shashi Kumar Shukla & Anr.

Asha Saini Vs Sh Ashwani Kumar Commissioner MCD and Others

Guddi and Anr. Vs Ravi Kumar and Ors.

Shailendra Mohan Upadhyaya Vs Delhi Police Public School & Anr.