Madras High Court Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited vs M/S. Metro Machinery Traders on 1 April, 2008 Dated : 01..04..2008 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. A.P. Shah, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan Writ Appeal Nos.1488, 1502 and 1562 of 2007 1. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise), Disposal Wing, Marketing Branch, Card Complex, Office of the Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units, Neyveli607 807. 2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Having its Registered Office at 'Neyveli House', rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units, 135, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, .. Appellants in Kilpauk, Chennai10. W.A.1488 of 2007 The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, Having its Registered Office at No.1, .. Appellant in Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi1. W.A.1502 of 2007 M/s. Metro Machinery Traders, No.42, II Floor, Nishant Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110 088, .. Appellant in Rep. by its partner Ram Kishan. W.A.1562 of 2007 versus 1. M/s. Metro Machinery Traders, No.42, II Floor, Nishant Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110 088, Rep. by its partner Ram Kishan. 2. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Mines, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 3. State Trading Corporation of India Limited, Having its Registered Office at No.1, Toistory Marketing, New Delhi3. 4. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation (A Govt. of India Enterprise), 'Ranka Chambers', 31, First Floor, Cunningham Road, Bangalore560 052. 5. The Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No.25, Gopalakrishna Iyer Road, .. Respondents in T. Nagar, Chennai17. W.A.1488 of 2007 1. M/s. Metro Machinery Traders, No.42, II Floor, Nishant Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110 088, Rep. by its partner Ram Kishan. 2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise), Disposal Wing, Marketing Branch, Card Complex, Office of the Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units, Neyveli607 807. 3. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Having its Registered Office at 'Neyveli House', rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units, 135, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, .. Respondents in Kilpauk, Chennai10. W.A.1502 of 2007 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Mines, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise), Disposal Wing, Marketing Branch, Card Complex, Office of the Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units, Neyveli607 807. 3. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Having its Registered Office at 'Neyveli House', rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chemical Units, 135, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai10. 4. State Trading Corporation of India Limited, Having its Registered Office at No.1, Toistory Marketing, New Delhi3. 5. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation (A Govt. of India Enterprise), 'Ranka Chambers', 31, First Floor, Cunningham Road, Bangalore560 052. 6 The Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No.25, Gopalakrishna Iyer Road, .. Respondents in T. Nagar, Chennai17. W.A.1562 of 2007 Prayer : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 26.10.2007 passed in W.P. No.43497 of 2006. W.A. No.1488 of 2007 For Appellants : Mr. N.A.K. Sarma For Respondent1 : Mr. G.L. Rawal, Senior Counsel and Mr. K.S. Vasan for M/s. Murthy & Vasan. For Respondent2 : Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General. For Respondent3 : Mr. D. Roy Choudhuri, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Umapathy For Respondent4 : Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr. F.B. Benjamin George For Respondent5 : Mr. P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General of India J U D G M E N T ( Delivered by Prabha Sridevan, J. ) The writ petition was filed by the first respondent in W.A. No.1562 of 2007 for quashing the Sale Order/Acceptance Letter No.MSTC/S/NLC/EA14/200506/101/008 dated 1.4.2005 issued by the fifth respondent, quash the same and direct the second and third respondents to return the amount of Rs.163,49,96,511/ after deducting the amounts already received, with interest at the rate of 18% from 30.4.2005 to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that facts are disputed and they must be established before a court of law by adducing sufficient proof and that the writ court cannot grant the relief sought for. But, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge gave findings that the contract between the parties was void ab initio, that the appellant in W.A. No.1488 of 2007 (respondent in the writ petition) had comm