LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/case-details-h-j-baker-and-bros-inc-vs-the-minerals-and-metals-trade-corporation-ltd-mmtc-20230818/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Case Details H. J. Baker and Bros. Inc. vs The Minerals and Metals Trade Corporation Ltd. (Mmtc)

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
18 August 2023
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(s). 2437 of 2010
Result
Dismissed
Bench
S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
Citation
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 287 : 2023 INSC 747
Supreme Court Reports [2023] 11 S.C.R. 287 : 2023 INSC 747
Issue for consideration
In the instant appeals, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which partly interfered with an arbitration award by upholding the findings of the Single Judge of the High Court to the extent the award granting damages for certain period, but set aside the award for the balance period, is challenged. Arbitration – Award of damages – Interference with – Award of damages for breach of contract for certain periods – Upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court, however, the Division Bench upheld the findings, to the extent the award granted damages for certain period, but set it aside for the balance period – Correctness: Held : As regards first period, conclusions of courts below upheld and does not call for interference – As regards the second period, the respondent made no attempt to produce a copy of the canalisation order before the tribunal nor intimated the claimant its inability to continue with the arrangement – Nothing was shown to prevent the respondent from communicating the said aspect at the earliest point of time – Thus, no interference called for – Furthermore, the measure of damages has to be in accord with s. 73, i.e. the market price of goods on the date of the breach, less the contract price – As regards, the award for the balance period, the Division Bench held that the failure to produce the best evidence that the claimant possessed in the form of contracts for the balance quantity and the payments received as proof of damage suffered and the shipping arrangements as well as the shipments as billed from time to time with full particulars, disentitled it to any compensation for the later period, which is in accordance with law – Impugned judgment applied the correct principles of law, in partly setting aside the award – As regards, the rate of interest, there have been concurrent findings – Contract Act, 1873 – s. 73. [Paras 14-16, 18-21]
Headnote

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

M/S. Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs M/S. Harishchandra Dwarkadas & Anr [1962] 1 SCR 653; Arosan Enterprises Ltd v Union of India [1999] Supp 2 SCR 621: (1999) 9 SCC 449; Vedanta Ltd. v. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd. [2018] (12) S.C.R 829 – referred to. Foley vs. Classique Coaches Ltd. (1934) 2 K.B. 1 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

CASE DETAILS H. J. BAKER AND BROS. INC. v. THE MINERALS AND METALS TRADE CORPORATION LTD. (MMTC) (Civil Appeal No(s). 2437 of 2010) AUGUST 18, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In the instant appeals, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which partly interfered with an arbitration award by upholding the findings of the Single Judge of the High Court to the extent the award granting damages for certain period, but set aside the award for the balance period, is challenged. Arbitration – Award of damages – Interference
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →