{"id":29252,"date":"2008-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-16T23:10:47","modified_gmt":"2016-02-16T17:40:47","slug":"bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n\n             Writ Petition C No 4633 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                   Bharat Aluminium  Company Ltd\n                                                ...Petitioners\n                           Versus\n\n                        M\/s Trafigura A G\n                                   ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!           Shri  M L Verma, Sr. Advocate  with  Shri\n            P C  Sen and Shri Abhishek Sinha,  counsel\n            for the petitioner\n\n\n^\n\n\n\n                   Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J\n\n\n\n                   Dated: 28\/08\/2008\n\n\n\n\n:                   Judgment\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>         (Passed on this 28th  day of August, 2008)<\/p>\n<p>      By  this  petition, the petitioner impugns  the<br \/>\nlegality  and  validity of the order  dated  5-8-2008<br \/>\n(Annexure-A) passed by the District Judge, Korba,  in<br \/>\ncivil  suit  No.5-A\/2008 whereby the application  for<br \/>\namendment  filed  under Order VI Rule  17  read  with<br \/>\nSection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for<br \/>\nshort &#8220;the CPC&#8221;) was rejected and the order dated 11-<br \/>\n8-2008  (Annexure-B)  whereby the  application  filed<br \/>\nunder Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the<br \/>\nCPC  for  grant  of  interim injunction  against  the<br \/>\nrespondent-M\/s Trafigura A.G. was also rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)    Shri Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf  of  the  petitioner-Bharat Aluminium  Company<br \/>\nLtd.,  submits  that  the petitioner  has  filed  the<br \/>\napplication under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of  the  CPC  in<br \/>\nthe   pending  suit  No.5-A\/2008.   Learned   counsel<br \/>\nsubmits  that  the  respondent under  the  threat  of<br \/>\ncontempt  is obstructing the petitioner to  prosecute<br \/>\nthe  remedies  available  under  Section  34  of  the<br \/>\nArbitration  and  Conciliation Act, 1996  (for  short<br \/>\n&#8220;the  Act,  1996&#8221;).  Shri Verma further submits  that<br \/>\nthe  petitioner has every right to take  recourse  to<br \/>\nSection  34  of the Act, 1996 in Indian  Courts.   In<br \/>\nsupport of his contention he relies on a decision  of<br \/>\nthe  Hon&#8217;ble  Supreme Court in the  case  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/75785\/\">Venture<br \/>\nGlobal Engineering vs. Satyam Computer Services  Ltd.<br \/>\nand<\/a> another1.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)    According to Shri Verma, there is no express or<br \/>\nimplied exclusion to any provisions of the Act, 1996.<br \/>\nThe learned District Judge has misdirected himself by<br \/>\ntaking  recourse  to Section 41 (b) of  the  Specific<br \/>\nRelief  Act,  1963 (for short &#8220;the  Act,  1963&#8221;)  and<br \/>\nrefused  to  grant ex parte order of  protection  and<br \/>\ninjunction  which  would  render  the  pending   suit<br \/>\ninfructuous.   The properties of the  petitioner  are<br \/>\nsituated in India and execution of the award  may  be<br \/>\nin  India  only.  The respondent&#8217;s Solicitor  in  his<br \/>\nnotice  dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure-H) has held  out  a<br \/>\nthreat  of contempt, in case, the petitioner commence<br \/>\nor   prosecute  any  other  proceedings  seeking   to<br \/>\nchallenge or set aside the First Interim Award  dated<br \/>\n21 December 2007 or the Second Interim Award dated 18-<br \/>\n7-2008 other than proceedings in England or with  the<br \/>\npermission  of the Commercial Court in  London.   The<br \/>\npetitioner has, prima facie, good case and balance of<br \/>\nconvenience  is  also in favour  of  the  petitioner.<br \/>\nThus,  as  an interim measure, an interim  injunction<br \/>\nmay  be  granted against the respondent-M\/s Trafigura<br \/>\nA.G.  not  to prevent the petitioner from challenging<br \/>\nthe  Second Interim Award under provisions of Section<br \/>\n34  of  the  Act,  1996 in Courts in  India.   If  an<br \/>\ninterim  protection  is not granted  the  suits  i.e.<br \/>\ncivil  suit  No.5-A\/2008 and civil  suit  No.6-A\/2008<br \/>\npending in the District Court, Korba, may be rendered<br \/>\nas infructuous. The present writ petition may also be<br \/>\nrendered  as  infructuous.  The  District  Court  has<br \/>\njurisdiction  to  restrain a  party  from  proceeding<br \/>\nfurther  with  an  action in  a  foreign  Court.   In<br \/>\nsupport  of this contention, he relies on a  decision<br \/>\nof the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/1181179\/\">Oil and<br \/>\nNatural  Gas Commission vs. Western Company of  North<br \/>\nAmerica2,<\/a> wherein the Supreme Court observed that :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;18.  In  the result we  are  of  the<br \/>\n          opinion  that the facts of this  case<br \/>\n          are eminently suitable for granting a<br \/>\n          restraint  order as prayed  by  ONGC.<br \/>\n          It  is  no doubt true that this Court<br \/>\n          sparingly  exercises the jurisdiction<br \/>\n          to  restrain a party from  proceeding<br \/>\n          further  with an action in a  foreign<br \/>\n          court..&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4)    I have heard learned counsel appearing for  the<br \/>\npetitioner,  perused the pleadings and the  documents<br \/>\nappended  thereto.  It is evident that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas filed an application under Section 34 of the Act,<br \/>\n1996  for setting aside the First Interim Award under<br \/>\nthe  provisions  of the Act, 1996 on 19-1-2008  being<br \/>\ncivil  suit  No.01-A\/2008.  The  District  Judge  had<br \/>\ntaken  cognizance of the matter on 18-2-2008  wherein<br \/>\nthe  respondent had appeared through his counsel  and<br \/>\ntook  part  in  the proceedings before  the  District<br \/>\nCourt.  The Second Interim Award was passed on  18-7-<br \/>\n2008.  The respondent&#8217;s Solicitor sent a notice dated<br \/>\n21-7-2008 (Annexure-H), inter alia, as  under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;In  the  circumstances,  we  require<br \/>\n          your  client&#8217;s undertaking, by  16.00<br \/>\n          hours  today,  that it will  take  no<br \/>\n          steps to:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          1.   continue  or prosecute  or  take<br \/>\n               any   further   steps   in   the<br \/>\n               proceedings  commenced   by   it<br \/>\n               against our client in the  Court<br \/>\n               of  the District Judge at Korba,<br \/>\n               India, Application 01 A\/08; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          2.   commence or prosecute any  other<br \/>\n               proceedings by which it seeks to<br \/>\n               challenge or set aside the First<br \/>\n               Interim  Award dated 21 December<br \/>\n               2007 or the Second Interim Award<br \/>\n               dated  18  July 2008 other  than<br \/>\n               proceedings in England  or  with<br \/>\n               the permission of the Commercial<br \/>\n               Court in London.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>5)   The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of Venture<br \/>\nGlobal Engineering (supra) held that :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;31&#8230;It is also clear that even<br \/>\n               in  the  case  of  international<br \/>\n               commercial arbitrations held out<br \/>\n               of  India provisions of  Part  I<br \/>\n               would  apply unless the  parties<br \/>\n               by    agreement,   express    or<br \/>\n               implied, exclude all or  any  of<br \/>\n               its provisions.  We are also  of<br \/>\n               the    view   that    such    an<br \/>\n               interpretation does not lead  to<br \/>\n               any  conflict between any of the<br \/>\n               provisions of the Act and  there<br \/>\n               is   no  lacuna  as  such.   The<br \/>\n               matter,  therefore, is concluded<br \/>\n               by    the   three-Judge    Bench<br \/>\n               decision        in        Bhatia<br \/>\n               International.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6)    The  Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the same judgment<br \/>\nfurther in para 33 held that :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;33..In  any  event,  to   apply<br \/>\n               Section     34    to     foreign<br \/>\n               international awards  would  not<br \/>\n               be  inconsistent with Section 48<br \/>\n               of   the   Act,  or  any   other<br \/>\n               provision  of  Part  II   as   a<br \/>\n               situation may arise, where, even<br \/>\n               in respect of properties situate<br \/>\n               in  India  and  where  an  award<br \/>\n               would  be invalid if opposed  to<br \/>\n               the   public  policy  of  India,<br \/>\n               merely   because  the  judgment-<br \/>\n               debtor resides abroad, the award<br \/>\n               can    be    enforced    against<br \/>\n               properties   in  India   through<br \/>\n               personal   compliance   of   the<br \/>\n               judgment-debtor and  by  holding<br \/>\n               out the threat or contempt as is<br \/>\n               being  sought to be done in  the<br \/>\n               present case.  In such an event,<br \/>\n               the  judgment-debtor  cannot  be<br \/>\n               deprived  of  his  right   under<br \/>\n               Section 34 to invoke the  public<br \/>\n               policy  of  India, to set  aside<br \/>\n               the award.  As observed earlier,<br \/>\n               the   public  policy  of   India<br \/>\n               includes  &#8211;  (a) the fundamental<br \/>\n               policy  of  India;  or  (b)  the<br \/>\n               interests  of  India;   or   (c)<br \/>\n               justice or morality; or  (d)  in<br \/>\n               addition,  if  it  is   patently<br \/>\n               illegal.       This     extended<br \/>\n               definition of public policy  can<br \/>\n               be  bypassed by taking the award<br \/>\n               to   a   foreign   country   for<br \/>\n               enforcement.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>7)   The petition is admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>8)    Issue  notice to the respondent, in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  the  High  Court of Chhattisgarh  Rules,  2007.<br \/>\nNecessary process fee shall be paid within two  days.<br \/>\nNotice be made returnable on 30-9-2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>9)    Also  heard  on I.A.No.1 of 2008,  for  interim<br \/>\nrelief<\/p>\n<p>10)   In view of the settled principle of law as laid<br \/>\ndown  by  the  Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court with  regard  to<br \/>\napplicability  of  Section 34 of the  Act,  1996  and<br \/>\ngrant   of   anti   suit  injunction   in   case   of<br \/>\ninternational award to the facts of case on hand,  it<br \/>\nis  expedient  to grant ex parte interim  injunction.<br \/>\nIt is found that the respondent through Solicitor has<br \/>\nheld  out  the  threat of contempt  to  preclude  the<br \/>\npetitioner from taking recourse to Section 34 of  the<br \/>\nAct,  1996 under the Indian law.  Every person has  a<br \/>\nright  to  take  recourse to  judicial  remedy  under<br \/>\nprovisions of the law.  Prima facie a case  has  been<br \/>\nmade out for grant of interim injunction against  the<br \/>\nrespondent.  The balance of convenience  is  also  in<br \/>\nfavour   of   the  petitioner.   In  the  facts   and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, I am constrained to  grant<br \/>\ninterim  injunction in the case on hand.  If  interim<br \/>\ninjunction  is  not granted, at this  stage,  to  the<br \/>\npetitioner,   the   suits  being   civil   suit   No.<br \/>\n5-A\/2008  and civil suit No.6-A\/2008 pending  in  the<br \/>\nCourt  of  District Judge, Korba may be  rendered  as<br \/>\ninfructuous.  Therefore, it is ordered  that,  as  an<br \/>\ninterim measure, until the returnable date of hearing<br \/>\ni.e.             30-9-2008 :\n<\/p>\n<p>               i)   The          respondent-M\/s<br \/>\n                    Trafigura  A.G.  shall  not<br \/>\n                    take any steps pursuant  to<br \/>\n                    the  notice dated 21-7-2008<br \/>\n                    (Annexure-H) issued by  the<br \/>\n                    Solicitor      of       the<br \/>\n                    respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>               ii)  The petitioner shall not be<br \/>\n                    prevented  from challenging<br \/>\n                    the  Second  Interim  Award<br \/>\n                    dated    18-7-2008,   under<br \/>\n                    Section 34 of the Act, 1996<br \/>\n                    in Indian Courts.\n<\/p>\n<p>               iii) The  respondent  shall  not<br \/>\n                    take  any steps to commence<br \/>\n                    or continue any proceedings<br \/>\n                    in   Courts   in   England,<br \/>\n                    pursuant   to  the   Second<br \/>\n                    Interim  Award dated  18-7-\n<\/p>\n<p>                    2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>11)   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  the  application<br \/>\n(I.A.No.1 of 2008) for interim relief stands disposed<br \/>\nof.\n<\/p>\n<p>12)  Certified copy, as per rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>13)  Call it on 30th September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             J  U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition C No 4633 of 2008 Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd &#8230;Petitioners Versus M\/s Trafigura A G &#8230;Respondents ! Shri M L Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri P C Sen and Shri Abhishek [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-16T17:40:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\\\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-16T17:40:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1431,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\\\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-16T17:40:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\\\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-16T17:40:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-16T17:40:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008"},"wordCount":1431,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008","name":"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-16T17:40:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-aluminium-company-ltd-vs-ms-trafigura-a-g-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs M\/S Trafigura A G on 28 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}