Dismissed

M/s.Mmtc Limited v. M/s.kamarajar Port Limited

Madras HC2 Aug 2024WA/498/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal sought quashing of a contract termination notice and extension of work-completion time via the bank. The High Court held disputed contractual obligations cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, found no infirmity in the Writ Court's dismissal, dismissed the appeal and closed the connected CMP.

What did the court decide?

None; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected CMP closed.

M/s.Mmtc Limited Vs M/s.kamarajar Port Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.498 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

W.A.No.498 of 2022

¶9

and

¶10

CMP.No.3595 of 2022

¶11

M/s.MMTC Limited, Represented by the Additional General Manager Mr.E.Malar Vannan 6, Esplanade, Chennai House, Chennai-600 108.

¶12

... Appellant

¶13

Vs.

¶14

M/s.Kamarajar Port Limited, 17 Jawahar Building, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶15

Yes Bank Limited, ONE, International Center, Tower II, 15^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 013.

¶16

UCO Bank,

¶17

Chief Manager, Flagship Corporate Branch, 1^st Floor, Mafatlar Center, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶19

W.A.No.498 of 2022

¶20

¶21

SICAL Logistics Limited Represented by (Insolvency Resolution Professional) Mr.Sripatham Venkatasubramanian Ramkumar (Regd. No.IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00015/2016-2017/10039) South India House, 73 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001.

¶22

SICAL Iron Ore Terminal Limited, South India House, 73 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set

¶25

aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 in WP.No.12950 of 2021 and thereby, quash the Termination Notice bearing No.KPL/OP/3.12/130 dated 22.03.2021.

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Ramasubramaniam Raja For Respondents : Ms.Arthi Fernandes for R1 *****

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

¶29

The relief sought for in the writ petition is to quash the Termination of

¶30

Contract in proceedings dated 22.03.2021 by the first respondent. The consequential relief is sought for to direct the 2^nd respondent-Bank to grant extension of time for completion of work based on the contract entered into

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶32

W.A.No.498 of 2022

¶33

between the first respondent and the fifth respondent.

¶34

Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings. Admittedly, the issues are relating to contractual obligations between the parties. Such issues are to be adjudicated with reference to the original documents and evidences available on record. The respondents 4 and 5 are private Companies. The contract entered into between the appellant and respondents 1 and 5 would be sufficient to form an opinion that the writ petition need not be entertained. The appellant has to redress its grievances by approaching competent Civil Court of law or the Forum, if any agreed between the parties under the agreement. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the Writ Court in dismissing the writ petition.

¶35

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also closed.

¶36

[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 02.08.2024

¶37

kmi Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶39

W.A.No.498 of 2022

¶40

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

kmi

W.A.No.498 of 2022

02.08.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

M/s.Mmtc Limited v. M/s.kamarajar Port Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Mmtc Limited v. M/s.kamarajar Port Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.E.Satagopan Vs Special Tahsildar,Adi Dravidar Welfare

S.Suganthi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Rajagopal (Died) Vs the State Bank of India

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vs R.Ravichandran

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Ramadoss

The Member Secretary Vs M.Thayanithy