Synopsis

ONGC (public sector undertaking) and L&T (contractor) had disputes arising from a delayed offshore platform project. The arbitral tribunal awarded ₹271.12 crores in favour of L&T and ₹42.95 crores in favour of ONGC (towards partial liquidated damages). ONGC filed a Section 34 petition challenging the award and also sought interim measures under Section 9 to compel renewal of a bank guarantee that secured its claim for liquidated damages. The key issue was whether an “unsuccessful party” (one with a net liability under the award) can maintain a post‑award Section 9 petition. The Bombay High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi (24.04.2026), held that such a petition is maintainable. The court granted interim relief, directing L&T to keep the bank guarantee alive until disposal of the Section 34 petition, finding rare and compelling circumstances.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 6th May 2026

Citation: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15345 of 2026 (unreported)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9, 34, 36(3); Post‑award interim relief for unsuccessful party.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay ordinary original civil jurisdiction

Commercial arbitration petition (l) no. 15345 of 2026

Oil and natural gas corporation limited (petitioner) vs. Larsen & toubro limited (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice sandeep v. marne

Reserved on: 30th april, 2026; pronounced on: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 9 (interim measures), section 34 (challenge to award), section 36(3) (stay of award pending challenge)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – principles of interim relief

Subject matter of the judgment:

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