Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The respondent is Director of BMM Ispat Limited having plant in Bellary District and approached plaintiff stating that she will conduct mining operations and extract iron ore mineral from the leasehold property measuring CT 1390_Com.A.S.154­2018_Judgment .doc 134 hectors of Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. After deliberation and discussion with plaintiff, the defendant agreed to carry on mining activities as raising contractor and an agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 1/1/2008. As per the conditions stipulated in the said agreement the defendant is required to raise iron ore mineral and process the same and suppy to the plaintiff and for the said activities of the defendant, the plaintiff has agreed to pay sum of Rs.240/­ per MT for the purpose of raising such iron ore mineral, process, transporting and supplying iron ore mineral to the plaintiff. As per the terms of agreement the plaintiff and defendant have agreed that duration of the agreement shall be 20 years or till the mining lease is transferred into the name of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals which is partnership firm consisting of plaintiff and others as partners. It is also agreed between plaintiff and defendant that the entire iron ore mineral process shall be delivered to the plaintiff as lessee and the defendant shall be responsible for safe custody and supply of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff.

4. Due to the above said understanding as per the terms of agreement between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant herein requested the plaintiff to permit her husband Sri. Dinesh Singhi who is also one of the partner of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals to apply for Mineral Despatch Permits, Forest Transit Pass for the purpose of transportation CT 1390_Com.A.S.154­2018_Judgment .doc of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff. To the said process the signature of plaintiff is required and the plaintiff has agreed to provide signature for applying Mineral Despatch Permits and Forest Transit Pass for the purpose of transporting iron ore mineral extracted by the defendant. When the defendant is carrying on work in terms of the said agreement there was a dispute arisen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to actual quantity of iron ore extracted by the defendant. The plaintiff contended that on account of ill­health he could not able to look into the activities of the defendant and defendant with the help of one Narasimhulu and Rajagopal who are the employees of defendant herein have extracted 6,84,674 MTs of iron ore. But disclosed in the annual returns filed by them before the authority as iron ore extract was 4,34,674 MTs. This fact is detected by the plaintiff through reliable sources and put­ forth his grievance before the defendant stating that 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore was transported to BMM Ispat Limited in which the husband of the defendant Dinesh Singhi was the director. But the defendant has contended that she has actually extracted 4,33,076.91 MTs of iron ore from the leasehold land of the plaintiff and not 6,84,674 MTs as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus there is a dispute arisen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to quantum of iron ore extracted during the relevant period and transported.

13. The respondent is Director of BMM Ispat Limited having plant in Bellary District and approached plaintiff stating that she will conduct mining operations and extract iron ore mineral from the leasehold property measuring 134 hectors of Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. After deliberation and discussion with plaintiff, the defendant agreed to carry on mining activities as raising contractor and an agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 1/1/2008. As per the conditions stipulated in the said agreement the defendant is required to raise iron ore mineral and process the same and supply to the plaintiff and for the said activities of the defendant, the plaintiff has agreed to pay sum of Rs.240/­ per MT for the purpose of raising such iron ore mineral, process, transporting and supplying iron ore mineral to the plaintiff. As per the terms of agreement the plaintiff and defendant have agreed that duration of the agreement shall be 20 years or till the mining lease is transferred into the name of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals which is partnership firm consisting of plaintiff and others as partners. It is also agreed between plaintiff and defendant CT 1390_Com.A.S.154­2018_Judgment .doc that the entire iron ore mineral process shall be delivered to the plaintiff as lessee and the defendant shall be responsible for safe custody and supply of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff.

17. On hearing both the sides and on going through the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator and the copies of documents produced, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is specialized and involved in conducting mining operations in CT 1390_Com.A.S.154­2018_Judgment .doc Karnataka State and also carrying on mining activities. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was granted mining lease of 134 hectors of land at Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District by Government of Karnataka and issued lease under ML No.2552. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has obtained permission under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to carry on such mining activities in the leasehold land. It is also not in dispute that the Central Government has granted approval U/S.5(1) of MMDR Act to the plaintiff to carry on mining activities in the leasehold land granted by Government of Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is Director of BMM Ispat Limited having plant at Bellary and approached plaintiff for carrying on mining activities in 134 hectors of land in Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and as per the discussion agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 1/1/2008. It is also not in dispute that as per the terms of the contract and conditions stipulated therein the defendant has to extract iron ore mineral from the leasehold land and shall process the same and supply iron ore mineral to plaintiff at the agreed rate of Rs.240/­ per MT. It is also not in dispute that as per the contract the defendant has right to carry on mining activities for 20 years or till the mining lease is transferred in the name of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals which is a partnership firm consisting of plaintiff and other partners. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has carried on the CT 1390_Com.A.S.154­2018_Judgment .doc mining activities in the leasehold land of plaintiff till 2010. But there was dispute arosen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to quantity of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land. It is contended by plaintiff that on account of ill­health of plaintiff he could not able to look into the activities of defendant and taking advantage of the same, the defendant with the help of one Narasimhalu and Rajagopal who are the employees of defendant extracted 6,84,674 MTs of iron ore from July 2009 to February 2010 as detailed below: