SC Refers Iron Ore Dispute to Mediation, Appoints Former CJI DY Chandrachud as Mediator

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered, "We appoint Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India to act as a Mediator between the parties and resolve the disputes. The fees etc. of the learned Mediator shall be fixed in consultation of the parties."

The petition before the Court arose from a judgment dated August 11, 2025, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 1550/2024. That appeal had challenged the order of the Commercial Court dated July 31, 2024, which had returned the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while allowing the appeal, had set aside the Commercial Court’s rejection of the plaint and held that since the suit contemplated urgent interim relief, the bar under Section 12A(1) of the Act would not apply. The Court restored the suit on the record of the Commercial Court and directed that it be adjudicated in accordance with law.

Further, the High Court restrained the respondent from transporting or selling the disputed 1,70,000 MT of iron ore forming part of the April 3, 2023 agreement. If any portion of the stock had already been removed, the respondents were barred from selling the deficit quantity from other stocks of similar specification.

The Court clarified that the Commercial Court would decide the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as well as the main suit independently, without being influenced by observations in its order.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The matter was heard at length by the Bench, where Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (appearing for the petitioner) and Gopal Subramanium (appearing for the respondent) advanced extensive arguments.

Both sides raised multiple contentions, but the Court, after considering the nature of the dispute, the long pendency of litigation, and the commercial stakes involved, expressed the view that mediation would be the most suitable course to achieve a resolution.

The Bench observed that the litigation between the parties was becoming “murkier and murkier by the day” and that the ends of justice would be better served if the parties attempted settlement through mediation before a respected former judge of the Court.

Both Dr. Singhvi and Subramanium accepted the Court’s proposal. Consequently, the Supreme Court appointed former CJI Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as the mediator.

The Court directed that:

1. The mediator’s fees would be fixed in consultation with the parties.

2. The mediator should furnish his report at the earliest.

3. The parties must appear before the mediator and cooperate in the process.

4. The matter would be listed after eight weeks for further directions.

Importantly, until the mediation process concludes, the Court ordered both parties to maintain status quo. It also directed that any pending civil or criminal proceedings between them shall remain stayed until the mediator’s report is submitted and further orders are passed.