Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a Commercial Arbitration Petition filed by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) against Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute originated from a contract between the parties, where L&T provided a bank guarantee towards liquidated damages under clauses 6.3.2 and 6.3.4 of the General Conditions of Contract. An Arbitral Tribunal passed an award granting L&T approximately INR 271 crore and ONGC approximately INR 43 crore. ONGC, being the unsuccessful party, challenged the award under Section 34 and also filed the present Section 9 petition seeking a direction to L&T to extend and keep alive the bank guarantee. The key legal issue was whether an unsuccessful party can maintain a Section 9 petition post-award. The respondent raised objections on maintainability, citing the Division Bench judgment in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited, which held that a losing party cannot file a Section 9 application. However, the Supreme Court in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi (decided on 24 April 2026) overruled Dirk India, holding that even an unsuccessful party can maintain a Section 9 application. The court noted that ONGC had also applied for similar interim relief under Section 36(3) but chose to file the Section 9 petition after the change in law. The respondent questioned the maintainability, propriety of filing both applications, and the merits of the interim relief. The judgment does not provide the final decision on the merits of the interim relief but focuses on the maintainability issue in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Section 9 Petition by Unsuccessful Party - Post-Award Interim Relief - The issue was whether a party that lost in arbitration can file a Section 9 petition seeking renewal of a bank guarantee after the award. The court held that following the Supreme Court's judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 670), an unsuccessful party can maintain a Section 9 application, overruling the earlier Division Bench decision in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481). (Paras 2-3)
B) Arbitration Law - Interim Relief - Section 9 vs. Section 36(3) - Propriety of Filing Both - The court considered whether it was proper for the petitioner to file a Section 9 petition after already seeking similar relief under Section 36(3) of the Act. The court did not decide this issue finally but noted the change in law. (Para 3)
C) Arbitration Law - Bank Guarantee - Interim Measures - The petitioner sought direction to the respondent to extend and keep alive a bank guarantee provided towards liquidated damages. The court examined the entitlement on merits but the judgment excerpt does not provide the final decision on merits. (Paras 1, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unsuccessful party in arbitration can maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures after the award, and whether such petition is maintainable despite a pending Section 34 challenge and a similar application under Section 36(3).
Final Decision
The judgment does not provide a final decision on the merits of the interim relief. It discusses the maintainability issue in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi, which overruled Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited, holding that an unsuccessful party can maintain a Section 9 application. The court reserved the matter for further hearing on the merits of the interim relief.
Law Points
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- maintainability of post-award petition by unsuccessful party
- change in law by Supreme Court
- interim relief pending Section 34 challenge
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 24
Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15345 of 2026
Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shreya Gupta, Ms. Prachi Gupta and Ms. Shradhha Kedia i/b M/s. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for the Petitioner; Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohaan Cama, Mr. Kyrus Modi, Mr. Mehul Talera, Mr. Indranil Deshmukh, Ms. Gathi Prakash Karrah, Ms. Nidhi Asher, Ms. Arushi Poddar & Mr. Prakhar Agarwal i/b M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for the Respondent.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Commercial Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures post-arbitral award.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (ONGC) sought a direction to Respondent (L&T) to extend and keep alive the bank guarantee provided towards liquidated damages.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the arbitral award and sought to secure its claim for liquidated damages pending challenge under Section 34.
Previous Decisions
Arbitral Tribunal awarded approximately INR 271 crore to Respondent and INR 43 crore to Petitioner. Petitioner challenged the award under Section 34 and also filed a Section 36(3) application for similar relief.
Issues
Whether an unsuccessful party in arbitration can maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures after the award.
Whether it is proper for the petitioner to file a Section 9 petition when similar relief is sought under Section 36(3) of the Act.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief on merits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that following the Supreme Court's judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi, an unsuccessful party can maintain a Section 9 application.
Respondent questioned maintainability citing Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited, and also raised issues of propriety and merits.
Ratio Decidendi
An unsuccessful party in arbitration can maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures after the award, as held by the Supreme Court in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi, overruling the earlier Division Bench decision in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a post Award Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a direction to the Respondent to extend and to keep alive the Bank Guarantee provided by Respondent to the Petitioner towards liquidated damages.
Though the issue of impermissibility for a losing party to maintain application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was fairly well settled by judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited, the law has undergone a change on account of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent judgment dated 24 April 2026 in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi, in which it is held that the judgment of this Court in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not lay down a good law and that even an unsuccessful party to arbitration can maintain application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
Procedural History
The dispute arose from a contract between ONGC and L&T. An Arbitral Tribunal passed an award. ONGC challenged the award under Section 34 and filed a Section 36(3) application for interim relief. Subsequently, after the Supreme Court's judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi on 24 April 2026, ONGC filed the present Section 9 petition seeking similar relief. The respondent raised objections on maintainability, propriety, and merits. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on the maintainability issue.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 34, Section 36(3)
