Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited has filed appeals at the Supreme Court of India following an adverse judgment from the Calcutta High Court in its decade-long legal dispute with Jai Balaji Industries Limited. The company filed two separate Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on December 19, 2025, challenging the High Court's December 9 decision that dismissed its appeals.

Supreme Court Appeals Filed

OMDC has approached the Supreme Court through an Advocate on Record (AOR) to challenge the Calcutta High Court's judgment. The company filed the appeals within ten days of the adverse ruling, demonstrating its commitment to pursuing all available legal remedies.

Background of High Court Judgment

The Calcutta High Court, through a bench comprising Honourable Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Honourable Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, had dismissed both F.M.A. No. 939 of 2012 and F.M.A. No. 941 of 2012 on December 9, 2025. The court affirmed the judgments passed by the Additional District Judge courts at Barasat and upheld the original arbitration awards from 2012.

Original Commercial Disputes

The legal battle originated from two separate iron ore supply agreements between OMDC and Jai Balaji Industries. The first agreement, dated March 11, 2004, involved the supply of 7,000 metric tonnes per month of sponge grade calibrated iron ore. The second agreement, executed on August 13, 2003, covered the supply of 1,00,000 tonnes of iron ore annually.

Arbitration Awards and Court Findings

Disputes arose when Jai Balaji Industries raised concerns about the quality of supplied products, while OMDC stopped supply citing non-payment of dues. The arbitration proceedings resulted in awards favoring Jai Balaji Industries in 2012, covering excess amounts spent in purchasing iron ore from alternative suppliers, loss of profits, and interest calculations.

The High Court found that OMDC had waived its right to 100% advance payment by continuing supply for substantial periods without insisting on such payments. The court emphasized that both agreements contained mandatory supply obligations despite "subject to availability" clauses.

Legal Strategy and Next Steps

By filing these Supreme Court appeals, OMDC is exercising its constitutional right to challenge the High Court's interpretation of the contractual obligations and arbitration awards. The company's prompt action in filing the SLPs within the prescribed time limit indicates its determination to seek judicial review of the adverse findings at the highest court level.

In a significant development for the mining sector, the Supreme Court has dismissed review petitions filed by Orissa Minerals Development Company and 3A Capitals, effectively upholding the denial of renewal for the Kolha-Roida mining lease. The court's decision extends beyond this specific case, as it also rejected renewal requests for the Thakurani and Dalki leases.

Impact on Orissa Minerals Development

The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to have substantial implications for Orissa Minerals Development Company, a key player in the mineral extraction industry. The denial of lease renewals for multiple mining sites, including Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki, could potentially affect the company's operations and future revenue streams.

Legal Proceedings and Outcomes

The case reached its conclusion in the Supreme Court after Orissa Minerals Development and 3A Capitals filed review petitions. These petitions were an attempt to overturn previous decisions that had denied the renewal of their mining leases. However, the apex court stood firm on its earlier stance, disposing of the review petitions and maintaining the rejection of lease renewals.

Broader Implications for the Mining Sector

This ruling by the Supreme Court may set a precedent for similar cases in the mining industry. It underscores the importance of regulatory compliance and the judiciary's role in overseeing mining lease allocations and renewals. The decision could potentially influence future policies and practices in the sector, emphasizing the need for mining companies to adhere strictly to legal and environmental guidelines.

Looking Ahead

As the dust settles on this legal battle, Orissa Minerals Development Company will need to reassess its strategies and operations in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The company may need to explore alternative mining sites or consider diversifying its portfolio to mitigate the impact of these lease renewal rejections.

Stakeholders and investors in Orissa Minerals Development Company will be closely watching how the company navigates these challenges and adapts its business model in response to this significant legal setback.