Karnataka HC rejects MML’s counterclaim of over Rs 1,100 crore against JSW Steel
“The subject application of the respondent (MML) seeking leave to amend the written statement for introducing the counterclaim is dismissed,” Justice Krishna S Dixit mentioned in a January 13 order, which got here as a significant reduction to the Sajjan Jindal-owned JSW Steel.
The decide additionally requested the decrease court docket to cross an order within the unique case inside a 12 months.
“The respondent’s (MML) contention that he has already laid the foundation for the filing of counterclaim in the original written statement itself, places into insignificance since what the law of limitation bars is the remedy and not the grounds on which it is founded,” the court docket mentioned in a 19-page order. “In other words even if the respondent had taken up all the grounds in his written statement as filed originally, a prayer for counter decree cannot be belatedly superadded once the same becomes time-barred.”
JSW Steel had initially filed a plea to say the refund of extra premium of about Rs 272 crore paid by it in lieu for provide of iron ore. The firm had entered into two lease-cum-sale deeds with the state authorities in 2006 for enlargement of its built-in metal crops. However, when the Supreme Court banned mining operations in Karnataka in 2011, this memorandum of understanding MoU was stored on maintain, resulting in a dispute between JSW Steel and MML.
The case dates again to 2012, JSW Steel had approached the court docket. MML filed its response to start with of 2013. Subsequently, MML sought the court docket’s permission in 2016 to amend its response and file a counterclaim against JSW Steel for Rs 1172.79 crore together with 18% curiosity.
The counsel for JSW Steel opposed the counterclaim saying, “A counterclaim is nothing but a ‘deemed suit’ for all practical purposes and therefore it is bound by the same limitation period,” argued the counsel for the Jindal owned firm.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the events can amend their reply inside 90 day. The legislation permits addition of info that are associated to the case solely.
MML had entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to offer uninterrupted iron ore provide to JSW Steel in 1995.
“Around 2012, when JSW Steel approached the court seeking refund of Rs 272 crore from MML, two lease-cum-sale deeds of the lands allotted to JSW in 2006 for expansion of its integrated steel plant came up for the execution of absolute sale deeds, spokes were put in the wheel of execution,” mentioned an individual aware of the event, who didn’t want to be recognized.
According to Ashish Ok Singh, managing accomplice of legislation agency Capstone Legal, industrial instances see a counterclaim most of the time and corporations ought to consider the limitation interval for submitting such claims together with the written assertion. The court docket was emphatically clear that point barred claims won’t be entertained.
“Applications for amendment take up a lot of court’s time and delay the trial. I believe this judgment would send a clear message that courts will not entertain unnecessary applications,” mentioned Singh.
