Bombay High Court Partially Allows ONGC's Challenge to Arbitral Award in Drilling Contract Dispute, Dismisses DDL's Cross-Challenge on Interest. Court upholds award of US$ 2,699,235.63 for wellhead tools and services but denies pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment concerns two arbitration petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 7 April 2010. The original claimant, Dolphin Drilling Limited (DDL), a company incorporated under English law, and the respondent, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), a public sector undertaking, entered into a contract on 17 October 2003 for the hire of DDL's drilling unit 'Bedford Dolphin'. Disputes arose regarding payment for wellhead tools and services provided by DDL. The arbitral tribunal awarded DDL US$ 2,699,235.63 for those services, along with costs of Rs. 71,68,723 and post-award interest at 18% per annum under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act. However, the tribunal denied pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a). DDL challenged only the denial of pre-award interest, while ONGC challenged the award on various grounds, including the merits of the claim. The court examined the scope of interference under Section 34, which is limited to grounds of public policy, patent illegality, or lack of jurisdiction. The court upheld the tribunal's findings on the merits, noting that the tribunal had considered the evidence and contractual terms. Regarding interest, the court held that the tribunal's discretion to deny pre-award interest was not arbitrary and did not warrant interference. The court dismissed DDL's petition and partially allowed ONGC's petition only to the extent of modifying the interest component, but ultimately upheld the award as passed. The court emphasized that the arbitral tribunal's decision on interest was within its discretion and not contrary to law.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Both parties challenged the award dated 7 April 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The original claimant, Dolphin Drilling Limited (DDL), challenged only the denial of pre-award interest, while the respondent, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), challenged the award on multiple grounds. The court examined the scope of interference under Section 34 and upheld the award on merits but modified the interest component. (Paras 1-4)

B) Interest - Pre-award Interest - Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - DDL contended that the tribunal erred in not granting interest on the unpaid invoices from the date of accrual of cause of action until the date of award. The court held that the tribunal's discretion under Section 31(7)(a) was not exercised arbitrarily and that the denial of pre-award interest was justified in the facts and circumstances. (Paras 3, 10-15)

C) Interest - Post-award Interest - Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The tribunal awarded interest at 18% per annum from the date of award till payment. The court upheld this rate as statutory and reasonable. (Para 2)

D) Contract Law - Interpretation of Contract - Wellhead Tools and Services - The dispute arose from a contract dated 17 October 2003 for hire of a drilling unit. The tribunal awarded US$ 2,699,235.63 for providing wellhead tools and services. The court found no patent illegality or perversity in the tribunal's findings and upheld the award on this count. (Paras 6-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arbitral tribunal erred in denying pre-award interest on the awarded amount from the date of cause of action to the date of award under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the award is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed Arbitration Petition No. 1065 of 2010 (DDL's petition) and partially allowed Arbitration Petition No. 1063 of 2010 (ONGC's petition) only to the extent of modifying the interest component, but ultimately upheld the award as passed by the tribunal.

Law Points

  • Arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Interest under Section 31(7)(a) and (b)
  • Pre-award interest
  • Post-award interest
  • Public sector undertaking
  • Contract interpretation
  • Wellhead tools and services
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012:BHC-OS:7065

Arbitration Petition No. 1063 of 2010 and Arbitration Petition No. 1065 of 2010

2012-05-09

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

2012:BHC-OS:7065

Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rashna Khan with Ms. Daizy Dubash with Mr. Abhishek Singh with Mr. Satchit Bavlekar i/by M/s. Mulla and Mulla for the Petitioners in Arbp/1065/10 and for Respondents in Arbp/1063/10; Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aziz Khan with Mr. Vinay Bhanushali i/by M/s. Divya Shah Associates for Respondents in Arbp.1065/10 and for Petitioners in Arbp/1063/10.

M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (in Arbp/1063/10) and M/s. Dolphin Drilling Limited (in Arbp/1065/10)

M/s. Dolphin Drilling Limited (in Arbp/1063/10) and M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (in Arbp/1065/10)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenges to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

ONGC sought setting aside of the award; DDL sought modification to include pre-award interest.

Filing Reason

Disputes arising from a contract for hire of a drilling unit regarding payment for wellhead tools and services.

Previous Decisions

Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 7 April 2010 granting US$ 2,699,235.63 to DDL with costs and post-award interest, but denying pre-award interest.

Issues

Whether the arbitral tribunal erred in denying pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whether the award is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act on grounds raised by ONGC.

Submissions/Arguments

DDL argued that the tribunal should have granted interest from the date of cause of action to the date of award under Section 31(7)(a). ONGC argued that the award was contrary to public policy and suffered from patent illegality.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitral tribunal's discretion to deny pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) was not arbitrary and did not warrant interference under Section 34. The award on merits was upheld as there was no patent illegality or perversity.

Judgment Excerpts

Both the parties, original claimants and the Respondents have challenged the impugned Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 7 April 2010 by raising respective grounds from their point of view. The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of US $ 2,699,235.63 on account of providing wellhead tools and services to the Respondent.

Procedural History

The arbitral tribunal passed an award on 7 April 2010. Both parties filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Bombay High Court. The petitions were heard and reserved on 30 March 2012, and judgment was pronounced on 9 May 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 31(7)(a), Section 31(7)(b), Section 34
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Promise-to-Marry Rape Case — Lack of Evidence of False Promise. Consent Based on Promise to Marry Not Vitiated When Promise Was Not False from Inception Under Section 376 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partially Allows ONGC's Challenge to Arbitral Award in Drilling Contract Dispute, Dismisses DDL's Cross-Challenge on Interest. Court upholds award of US$ 2,699,235.63 for wellhead tools and services but denies pre-award interest und...