"1 2026:CGHC:12398-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 9 of 2023 M/s Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited A Company Registered Under Companies Act 1956/2013, Having Its Registered Office At Industrial Ward, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Mr. Ashol Agrawal Aged About 60 Years, S/o Sri Vidya Sagar Agrawal, 7-5-84/35, Flat No. 301, Pine Wood, Jasti Square Apartments, Beach Road, Beside Panduranga Puram, Visakhapatanam (Urban) Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Chandra Dewangan, Aged About 32 Years S/o Shri Parmeshwar Dewangan, R/o Rd-8, Anjani Vihar, Chantidih, Dabri Para, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited A Company Resgistered Under Companies Act, 1956/2013 And Having Its Registered Office At Sector-24, Office Block-7a, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Managing Director. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Manoraj Singh, Mr. Rahul Ambast and Mr. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocates For Respondent/CMDC : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ankit Singhal, Ms. Jasleen K. Gulati, and Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocates Printed from counselvise.com VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.17 10:56:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the memo/order dated 23.06.2022 issued by the respondent – Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (CMDC), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an additional amount of Rs.3,68,05,847/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Eight Lacs Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven only) towards the alleged difference between the final and escalated value of iron ore pursuant to the agreement dated 14.06.2021 executed between the parties. The petitioner has assailed the said demand primarily on the ground that while determining the revised final price of iron ore, the respondent has taken into consideration the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of the Financial Year 2021–2022, whereas in terms of Clause 12 of the agreement, the WPI applicable for the current financial year i.e. 2022–2023 ought to have been applied. According to the petitioner, the adoption of the WPI of the earlier financial year has resulted in an arbitrary and inflated demand, thereby rendering the impugned memo/order dated 23.06.2022 unsustainable in law. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming for the following reliefs:- “10.1) The That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to be set aside the order dated 23/06/2022 issued by the Respondent with all Printed from counselvise.com 3 consequential reliefs and further be pleased to direct the Respondent for considering WPI in the Year under consideration i.e. WPI of last month published by the Office of The Economic Advisor, Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade shall be taken as base for the assessment of revised Final Price Offer for the month under consideration. For example, for the calculation of revised Final Price Offer for the month of October 2022, the WPI published in the month of October 2022 for the month of September 2022 shall be taken as base. 10.2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3) That Cost of the Petition may also be kindly granted to the Petitioner.” 3. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the dispute resolution mechanism provided under Clause 20(v) of the Agreement dated 14.06.2021, which stipulates settlement of disputes through arbitration, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with the said arbitration clause. 4. Considering the aforesaid submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under Clause 20(v) of the Agreement by initiating appropriate arbitration proceedings in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com 4 5. Consequently, the interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved Printed from counselvise.com "