Synopsis

ONGC sought continuation of a bank guarantee of USD 14.82 million pending its challenge under Section 34 to an arbitral award that had rejected its claim for liquidated damages and directed return of the guarantee. Swiber, the successful party in arbitration, was under liquidation in Singapore. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: (i) post-award relief under Section 9 is available only in exceptional circumstances as per Home Care Retail Marts; (ii) ONGC failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case as the Tribunal had completely rejected its claim; (iii) the Consent Terms between the parties provided that the guarantee would remain alive only for 120 days after the award, which period had expired; (iv) ONGC failed to disclose these Consent Terms in the present proceedings despite relying on them elsewhere; (v) the balance of convenience did not favour extension beyond the agreed period; (vi) the case was distinguishable from ONGC v. Larsen & Toubro where a part of the claim had already been awarded.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay ordinary original civil jurisdiction in its commercial division

Commercial arbitration petition no. 17832 of 2026

Oil and natural gas corporation limited (petitioner) vs. Swiber offshore construction pte limited (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice amit borkar

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9 (interim measures by court), 34 (challenge to arbitral award), 36 (enforcement and stay) – Post-award interim protection – Continuation of bank guarantee – Home Care Retail Marts principles – Consent terms – International Commercial Arbitration.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Borkar (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 15, 2026 (Reserved on June 11, 2026)
Case No.: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 17832 of 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13025

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9 (interim measures by court), 34 (challenge to arbitral award), 36(3) (stay of award pending challenge)

• Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 73, 74 (liquidated damages)

• Consent Terms – recorded by Court on 08.09.2016

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a party against whom an arbitral award has been passed can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, post-award, to seek continuation of a bank guarantee pending adjudication of its challenge under Section 34, and what is the threshold for grant of such relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi.

Key legal principles applied:

• Post-award Section 9 relief – higher threshold: Following Home Care Retail Marts, a party that has suffere

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.