2022:BHC-OS:4508

PVR 1 carbp135-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 135 OF 2022

Ocean Sparkle Limited. … Petitioner.

Vs.
1.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
2. State Bank of India. … Respondents.

---

Mr. Prathmesh Kamat with Ms.Ashwini Sinha i/b. Bhatt & Saldana, for
the Petitioner.

Mr.Vishal Kanade with Nishit Dhruva, Kushbu Chhajed and Atharva

Diwe i/b. MDP & Partners, for the Respondents.
-----
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 6 JUNE 2022.

JUDGMENT:

1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act,1996 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby the petitioner has

prayed for interim reliefs pending the arbitral proceedings.

2. Perusal of the memo of the petition shows that the disputes and

differences between the parties have arisen under the contract

agreement dated 14 June 2018 (referred to as ‘the contract

agreement’)as awarded by respondent No.1 – Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd (for short ‘ONGC’) to the petitioner, under which the

petitioner chartered its vessel i.e. ‘OSL Glory’ (for short ‘the said vessel’)

to ONGC for a period of three years (1095 days), commencing from 20

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 2 carbp135-22.doc

March 2018 at 12.18 hours. The parties agreed that the contract

agreement would stand completed unless automatically extended for a

period not exceeding 30 days under the same rates to the satisfaction of

the ONGC.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in furtherance of the contract

agreement, the said vessel as chartered to the ONGC was to be utilized

for the purpose of its off shore activities which were detailed in

‘Schedule C’ to the contract agreement. The contract agreement provides

that the petitioner would raise invoices at the end of each month

alongwith the photo copies of the relevant documents. The petitioner

accordingly raised monthly invoices claiming charter-hire/remuneration

as per the terms of the contract agreement. The petitioner has

contended that the petitioner had raised invoices from 1 April 2019 upto

May, 2021. The invoices raised by the petitioner from September, 2019

to March, 2020 were cleared by the ONGC without any demur.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that there is some significance in

the ONGC clearing the petitioner’s invoices after September,2019, for

the reason that on 1 September 2019 an incident took place namely that

the petitioner’s said vessel (whilst on the ONGC charter) collided with

the ONGC unmanned platform ‘RS-21’ when the vessel was approaching

Rig Jindal Explorer.

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 3 carbp135-22.doc

5. The P&I Club of the petitioner [ShipOwners’ Protection and

Indemnity Association (Luxembourg)] appointed one ‘UBA Insurance

and Surveyor and Loss Assessors LLP’ (for short ‘UBA’) to survey the

cause of incident between between the ONGC’s platform RS-21 and the

petitioner’s vessel. On 18 October 2019, UBA submitted its preliminary

report to the petitioner under which the probable cause, interalia, was

attributed to the Power Management System module of A/E 3 of the

petitioner’s vessel having malfunctioned. The report recorded that the

module appeared to have sensed wrong frequency voltage and reduced

the speed of A/E 3. This malfunctioning had caused the incident. On 5

December 2019 UBA submitted its damage survey Report, whereunder it

was interalia observed by UBA that the joint inspection of Spyder Deck,

Boat Landing was carried out and no apparent damages were noted.

UBA also found that prevailing repair rate of an offshore contractor and

the repair estimates were in the range of USD 30,000.

6. The ONGC, however, by its letter dated 17 December 2020 made

a claim against the petitioner for a sum of USD 616,490/- towards the

repair cost which would be payable by the petitioner to the ONGC for

the damages to RS-21 which had occurred due to the incident involving

the petitioner’s vessel. ONGC alleged negligence on the part of the

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 4 carbp135-22.doc

petitioner. The said letter of the ONGC was replied by the petitioner

through its Advocate’s letter dated 12 January 2021 denying the

allegations of the ONGC of any negligence and wilful misconduct on the

part of the petitioner. The petitioner making a reference to Clause 16(B)

and Clause 17(2) of the Contract Agreement contended that the

petitioner was absolved of any liability. The petitioner, accordingly,

denied its liability to make payment of such amount as claimed by the

ONGC.

7. On 18 February 2021 the petitioner and ONGC executed a

Contract Information Letter by which the contract agreement was

extended from 20 March 2021 to 19 April 2021 (period of 30 days as

agreed between the parties), as the contract agreement had come to an

end on 18 March 2021. Accordingly, on 19 April 2021 the extended

period of the contract agreement came to an end, the vessel of the

petitioner stood de-hired by the ONGC at 8.48 hours and was returned

to the petitioner. Also a survey of the Board fuel remaining was carried

out on 18 April 2021.

8. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner had raised an

invoice for the month of March 2021 as also for the month of April

2021, on 31 March 2021 and 30 April 2021 respectively, however, such

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 5 carbp135-22.doc

invoices were not honoured by the ONGC. It is contended by the

petitioner that on 26 April 2021 the ONGC by its letter once again

claimed an amount of USD 616,490 towards compensation for repairs of

the damaged property RS-21. The petitioner by its Advocate’s letter

dated 3 June 2021 denied the ONGC’s claim as made in its letter dated

26 April 2021 interalia contending that there was no break-up of an

amount of USD 616,490 as set out by the ONGC in making such claim. It

was also stated that there was no document to support such claim. The

petitioner also denied the liability by inviting attention to Clause 16(B)

and 17.2(b) of the contract agreement which according to the petitioner

exempted the petitioner of any liability towards damage caused to the

ONGC’s property. Petitioner also denied any gross negligence or any

willful misconduct in the happening of such incident. The petitioner has

also referred to Clause 16.3 of the Special Conditions of Contract, which

according to the petitioner, absolves the petitioner from any liability

arising from the said incident.

9. The petitioner by a further letter of its Advocate dated 24 June

2021 addressed to the ONGC recorded that the contract agreement had

come to an end and the vessel was redelivered to the petitioner. It was

stated that hence, the ONGC was to pay the petitioner a sum of USD

706028.17 equivalent to Rs.5,17,73,076.34/- which despite several

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 6 carbp135-22.doc

requests, the ONGC had not remitted such amount. Such letter

addressed on behalf of the petitioner was responded by ONGC by its

Advocate’s letter dated 28 June 2021 interalia stating that there was

deliberate and gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and the

petitioner was liable to compensate the ONGC, referring to various

clauses of the contract agreement. The petitioner’s advocate replied to

the said letter of the ONGC’s Advocate by its letter dated 29 July 2021

denying the allegations of any gross negligence and demanding payment

of outstanding amount USD 706,028.17, which was again denied by the

ONGC by its Advocate’s letter dated 24 September 2021.

10. On the above backdrop, the ONGC addressed another letter dated

10 November 2021 to the petitioner reiterating that on account of gross

negligence on the part of the petitioner, its vessel collided with the

ONGC’s unmanned platform RS-21 causing damages. ONGC alleged that

as there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, Clause 16 of the

General Condition of the Contract would become applicable and the

petitioner would be liable to make good loss to the ONGC. It was

recorded that the invoices for the month of March to June,2021 which

were withheld, were pertaining to the contract with another vessel ‘OSL

Triumph’. It was recorded that the invoices for the months of March-

April,2021 and for differential fuel amounts were also withheld for the

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 7 carbp135-22.doc

contract pertaining to the vessel in question ‘OSL Glory’ for ONGC’s

claim of USD 727,458.20, as suffered by it due to alleged negligence of

the petitioner for the incident which had taken place on 1 September

2019. The petitioner responded to the said letter of the ONGC by its

Advocate’s letter dated 13 January 2022 interalia stating that for the

alleged claim of ONGC of USD 727,458.20, ONGC had withheld a sum

of USD 1098967.07 as entitled to the petitioner. The petitioner also

offered a letter of undertaking from its P&I Club (supra) to compensate

ONGC in case damages caused to the ONGC were proved. However, the

ONGC by its letter dated 18 January 2022 rejected the letter of

undertaking of the petitioner’s P&I Club on the ground that the same

was conditional.

11. The matter has rested at this. However, another facet of the

matter as placed on record by the petitioner is that under the contract in

question of which performance had come to an end, the petitioner had

issued a performance bank guarantee of respondent no.2/State Bank of

India (for short ‘SBI’) as agreed between the parties under Clause 10.0

of the Contract Agreement. The performance bank guarantee was a

security to seek performance of the contract agreement, and as provided

under Clause (5) of such performance bank guarantee, it was to remain

in force during the period that was taken for performance of the

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 8 carbp135-22.doc

contract. It is the case of the petitioner that as the payments under the

contract agreement were not being settled due to the position taken by

the ONGC that its platform RS-21 had suffered damages due to the

incident which had taken place on 1 September 2019, and as the

petitioner wanted to be optimistic of the settlement, the petitioner at the

request of the ONGC had extended the performance bank guarantee

from time to time and last of such extension was upto 6 June 2022. The

correspondence in that regard has been referred by the petitioner which

is between 19 May 2021 to 7 February 2022 in relation to extension of

the bank guarantee. The contention of the petitioner is that there is

likelihood that the ONGC may invoke this bank guarantee so as to

appropriate the amounts under the bank guarantee towards the alleged

damages suffered by it as caused due to such incident which had taken

place on 1 September 2019.

12. Thus, It is the petitioner's contention that there is no dispute that

under the invoices as raised by the petitioner on the ONGC, the amounts

are due and payable which pertained to the successful performance of

the contract. It is contended that even ONGC has no dispute whatsoever

on successful performance of the contract, having come to an end. The

petitioner says that once the amounts under the invoices are undisputed,

such amounts either need to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 9 carbp135-22.doc

or they need to be deposited in this Court pending the arbitral

proceedings. According to the petitioner, such amount cannot be

withheld as also the purported damages as claimed by the ONGC cannot

be appropriated in any other manner including invoking of the

performance bank guarantee to claim the amount which is neither a

claim for liquidated damages nor a claim for an ascertained adjudicated

amount of damages suffered by the ONGC. On such conspectus, the

petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) that pending the commencement and culmination of the

arbitral proceedings between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.1, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent
No.1 to deposit in this Hon’ble Court a sum of USD 340,126.85
as amounts outstanding under the Invoices with interest @ 18%
per annum;
(b) that pending the commencement and culmination of the
arbitral proceedings between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.1, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent
No.1 to discharge and return the Performance Bank Guarantee
bearing No.0192118FG0000185 dated 7th March 2018 was to
remain in force until 6 June 2022;
(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the
present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the
Respondent, their servants, agents, officers, person or persons
claiming through or under it from in any manner invoking and/
or encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee bearing
No.0192118FG0000185 dated 7th March 2018 was to remain in
force until 6 June 2022;
(d) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c)
above;
(e) for costs;
(f) for such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit considering the nature and circumstances of the
case.”

13. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the ONGC interalia

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 10 carbp135-22.doc

stating that there are two separate contract agreements between the

petitioner and the ONGC for charter of two vessels namely ‘OSL Glory’

and ‘OSL Triumph’ respectively, to be utilized for carrying out ONGC’s

offshore activities. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to

any reliefs for the reason that even considering the report of UBA as

relied on behalf of the petitioner, the incident was the result of an

inadequate maintenance of the petitioner’s vessel and lack of expertise

on the part of its crew stationed thereunder to handle the situation,

being the probable cause of incident which had occurred on 1

September 2019. It is contended that the ONGC also conducted an

inquiry to find out the cause of incident which reveals that the incident

had occurred due to lapse on the part of the petitioner. Referring to

clauses (8), (13) and (15) of the contract agreement, it is contended

that the petitioner was blatantly defying its responsibilities under the

contract agreement. ONGC states that as the petitioner had failed to

maintain the seaworthiness of the vessel, ONGC had suffered damages

and for which ONGC by its letters dated 17 December 2020, 26 April

2021, 28 June 2021 and 24 September 2021, had called upon the

petitioner to pay damages of USD 616,490 plus applicable taxes, as

caused to its platform, which according to the ONGC, the petitioner is

liable to pay and has denied such payment. ONGC has also contended

that it was not prepared to accept the letter of undertaking of the P&I

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 11 carbp135-22.doc

Club of the petitioner as a condition for release of the payment of

invoices of March 2021 and April 2021. ONGC has also contended that

the performance bank guarantee could not have been discharged unless

the ONGC’s claims were satisfied. This more particularly referring to

Clause (5) of the performance bank guarantee. It is contended that as

the bank guarantee is an independent contract, the petitioner cannot

pray for an injunction restricting invocation of the bank guarantee and

an obligation on the bank to honour its invocation. ONGC has

accordingly prayed for dismissal of this petition.

14. Mr.Kamat, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made

submissions to support the prayers as made in the petition. In so far as

the prayer for direction to the ONGC to deposit an amount under the

invoices is concerned, Mr.Kamat would submit that the ONGC cannot set

off its claim for any unliquidated damages against the admitted claim of

the petitioner payable under the invoices which have been withheld by

the ONGC. It is submitted that the petitioner’s claim has arisen under

the admitted invoices for the work performed under the contract

agreement in question. It is submitted that the ONGC’s claim being un-

ascertained and unsubstantiated, is not a debt in presenti payable by

the petitioner to the respondent. It is submitted that, if at all, the ONGC

needs to prove such damages by adducing evidence in an arbitral trial

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 12 carbp135-22.doc

and cannot seek set off of an admitted claim of the petitioner under the

invoices. It is contended that Clause 8 of the contract agreement when it

provides that the petitioner agreed to all claims, taxes and fees for

equipment, labour, materials, services and supplies to be furnished by it

etc., would not have any application in the context of any claim for

unliquidated damages. It is submitted that on a holistic reading of such

clause, when the clause uses the word ‘all claims’, it would necessarily

mean a claim made by a third party, as words ‘all claims’ would be

required to be read in the context of the group of words as contained in

the clause that is payment of taxes, fees for equipment, labour,

materials, services and supplies etc. It is hence the petitioner’s

submission that such clause does not talk about any such claim as made

by the ONGC. It is submitted that there is no dispute on the ONGC’s

liability to pay invoices as raised by the petitioner (Exhibit A to C) and

hence, there was no question of ONGC refusing to pay the invoices by

invoking its claim on unliquidated damages. It is thus submitted that the

claim as made by the petitioner against the ONGC for payment under

the invoices is undisputed and liable to be secured by depositing the

amount in this Court. It is submitted that in regard to the claim of the

ONGC in relation to the damages suffered by it, even otherwise, the

petitioner is not liable under Clause 16B read with Clause 17.2(b) of the

contract agreement and Clause 16.3 of the Special Conditions of

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 13 carbp135-22.doc

Contract. It is submitted that the principles of law are absolutely clear

when a claim of a Section 9 petitioner is in regard to undisputed

amounts, as in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in such

situation the Courts considering such nature of the claim, have passed

orders recognizing such undisputed/ admitted claims and have passed

orders directing deposit of the undisputed amounts. In supporting this

submission Mr.Kamat has placed reliance on the decisions in (i) Kreuz

Subsea Pte. Ltd. Vs. Valentine Maritime Ltd. & Anr., in LD VC-COMM

Arbitration Petition No.138 of 2020 (G.S.Patel, J.) decided on

11/11/2020; (ii) Valentine Maritime Ltd. Vs. Kreuz Subsea Pte Ltd.,

2021 SCC OnLine Bom 75; (iii) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs.

Williamson Magor & Co., Ltd. & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 305;

(iv)Affluence Media vs. Pinaka Studios Pvt.Ltd., Arbitration Petition (L)

No.16504 of 2021 – Order dt.15/09/2021.

15. Mr.Kamat has submitted that the ONGC is also not entitled to

invoke the bank guarantee in question as the bank guarantee as

furnished is clearly in the nature of a performance bank guarantee. It is

submitted that as per Clause 10 of the contract agreement, such bank

guarantee was issued to guarantee the performance of the contract, and

once the contract stood performed and that too without any demur,

there was no question of the ONGC invoking the performance bank

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 14 carbp135-22.doc

guarantee. It is submitted that in the present facts, the general principles

of fraud and irretrievable injustice are clearly not applicable and hence,

the petitioner would be justified in seeking discharge of the bank

guarantee as there exists no performance which needs to be guaranteed.

It is submitted that there is no breach alleged at any given time during

completion of the contract. Mr.Kamat has submitted that in fact

continuation of the performance bank guarantee is contrary to the terms

of the contract agreement as well as the terms of the bank guarantee

which was restricted to guarantee performance of the contract and any

invocation of the bank guarantee would be contrary to its terms. In

support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decisions in (i)

M/s.KSE Electricals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Project Director, Bangladesh Rural

Electrification Board and Anr. (Cal HC) (Moushami Bhattacharya, J.) -

A.P. 230 of 2021; and (ii) Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Allahabad Bank

& Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5311.

16. Per contra Mr.Kanade, learned Counsel for the ONGC has justified

the actions of the ONGC withholding the payment under the invoices in

question on the grounds as set out in the reply affidavit. Mr.Kanade

would submit that the petitioner unconditionally and without any

protest extended the bank guarantee on four occasions after April,2021

and the latest upto 6 June 2022. It is his contention that the petitioner

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 15 carbp135-22.doc

cannot approbate and reprobate on its stand that the bank guarantee

being performance bank guarantee, cannot be extended beyond

April,2021, when the petitioner’s conduct is ex facie contrary to its

pleaded case in the petition, when it has extended the period of bank

guarantee unconditionally and which is undisputed position. Mr.Kanade

referring to Clause 5 of the bank guarantee would contend that such

clause clearly provides that the bank guarantee shall remain in force

during the period of performance and till all claims of the ONGC are

satisfied. It is submitted that being an independent contract, the

petitioner has not made out any case of fraud or special equities in order

to seek an order of stay on invocation of bank guarantee. It is submitted

that Clause 10 of the contract agreement in question itself grants ONGC

an unconditional option to invoke the same in respect of any amount

due from the petitioner, and for which the bank guarantee was

unconditionally extended by the petitioner till June,2022. It is submitted

that on account of its own conduct, the petitioner is estopped from

contending that the said bank guarantee cannot be invoked. It is

submitted that if such a stand was taken earlier in writing and

unequivocally, the ONGC would have taken appropriate step at the

contemporaneous time under the subject contract. Mr.Kanade has

accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 16 carbp135-22.doc

17. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties as also with their

assistance I have perused the record.

18. Before embarking on the question to be decided, it may be

appropriate to notice some of the relevant clauses of the contract

agreement as referred by the parties which are primarily Clause Nos.3.0,

8, 10, 16(B), 18.6 which read thus:

3.0 DURATION OF THE CONTRACT:

The duration of contract shall be for a period of 3 years (1095) from

20.03.2018;12.18 hrs. the date of mobilization for all the vessels.

The contract will stand automatically extended for a period not exceeding 30
days under the same rates, terms and conditions to cover the time necessary to
complete, to the satisfaction of ONGC, the work in progress at the end of the
term of the contract.

ONGC shall have the exclusive right to terminate the contract for the
chartered vessel by giving to the Contractor thirty (30) days written notice
without assigning any reason therefore. However, this clause would apply
after first 12 months of the contract.

8.0 CLAIMS, TAXES & DUTIES, FEES AND ACCOUNTING :

8.1 CLAIMS

CONTRACTOR agrees to pay all claims, taxes and fees for equipment, labour,
materials, services and supplies to be furnished by it hereunder and agrees to
allow no lien or charge resulting from such claims to be fixed upon any
property of CORPORATION. CORPORATION may, at its option, pay and
discharge any liens or overdue charges for CONTRACTOR’s equipment, labour,
materials, services and supplies under this CONTRACT and may thereupon
deduct the amount or amounts so paid from any sum due, or thereafter
becomes due, to CONTRACTOR hereunder.

10 PERFORMANCE:-

The CONTRACTOR has submitted Performance Bank Guarantee

No.0192118FG0000185 dtd. 07.03.2018 for USD Valid up;to 06.06.2021 from
State bank of India Overseas Branch, Plot No.214A, 2 nd floor, Rajala Towers
road, No.36, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 033, Tel.No. 91-40-23147503
towards performance under this CONTRACT.

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 17 carbp135-22.doc

In the event CONTRACTOR fails to honour any of the commitments entered

into under this agreement or in the event of termination of the contract under
provisions of Integrity Pact and / or in respect of any amount due from the
CONTRACTOR to the CORPORATION, the CORPORATION shall have
unconditional option under the guarantee to invoke the above bank guarantee
and claim the amount from the bank. The bank shall be obliged to pay the
amount to the CORPORATION on demand.

16. INSURANCE

B) Protection & Indemnity (P&I) cover for the vessel.

The contractor shall carry P&I cover for the vessel deployed by them and the
indemnification under the P&I cover shall include indemnification of damage/
loss to corporation’s existing property and the property of any other party,
caused by the Contractor’s vessel. The above P&I cover shall also indemnify
the CORPORATION against any pollution liability caused by the vessel(s).
Contractor needs to effect with Protection & Indemnity Insurance with a
member from International Group of Mutual P&I Clubs or insurance company
approved/accepted by Indian ports for the purpose of Port entry. The
indemnity for damages caused to corporation’s property by the vessel shall be
US$20 million on any one accident/occurrence.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision of this CONTRACT, save

as specified above in this Clause CORPORATION shall defend, indemnify and
hold Contractor harmless from and against any losses, damages, cost or claims
relating to CORPORATION’s existing property except in case of gross
negligence or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its sub-contractor their
agents or employees, in which case the Contractor shall be liable to bear any
loss or damage occurring to the Property of the CORPORATION as a result of
its gross negligence or willful misconduct (there shall be no limit for
loss/damage due to gross negligence/willful misconduct).

“Gross Negligence” means: any act or failure to act (whether sole, joint or
concurrent) by a person or entity which was intended to cause, or which was
in reckless disregard of or wanton indifference to, avoidable and harmful
consequences such person or entity knew, or should have known, would result
from such act or failure to act. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Gross
negligence shall not include any action take in good faith for the safeguard of
life or property, “willful misconduct” means: “intentional disregard of good
and prudent standards of performance or proper conduct under the
CONTRACT with knowledge that it is likely to result in any injury to any
person or persons or loss or damage of property.

18.6 Consequences of termination

In all case of termination herein set forth, the obligation of the ONGC to pay
shall be limited to the period upto the date of termination. Notwithstanding
the termination of this Agreement, the parties shall continue to be bound by
the provisions of this Agreement that reasonable require some action or
forbearance after such termination.

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 18 carbp135-22.doc

In case of termination of Contract herein set forth, except under 18.1 and
18.2, and / or annulment of the contract due to non-submission of
Performance Security, following actions shall be taken against the Contractor:

i. ONGC shall conduct an inquiry against the Contractor and consequent to the
conclusion of the inquiry, if it is found that the fault is on the part of the
Contractor, then they shall be put on holiday [ i.e neither any tender enquiry
will be issued to such a Contractor by ONGC against any type of tender nor
their offer will be considered by ONGC against any ongoing tender(s) where
contract between ONGC and that particular Contractor (as a bidder) has not
been concluded] for a period of two years from the date the order for putting
the Contractor on holiday is issued. However, the action taken by ONGC for
putting that Contractor on holiday shall not have any effect on other ongoing
contract(s), if any with that Contractor which shall continue till expiry of their
term(s).

ii. Pending completion of the enquiry process for putting the Contractor on
holiday, ONGC shall neither issue any tender enquiry to the defaulting
Contractor nor shall consider their offer in any ongoing tender.

19. It clearly appears that ONGC has not disputed the petitioner

performing the contract agreement which was a charter party agreement

for hire of the petitioner’s vessel for ONGC’s offshore activities for a

specific period of three years commencing from 20 March 2018,

extendable for a further period not exceeding 30 days as noted above. It

also appears to be not in dispute that the petitioner had raised monthly

invoices for the period from September 2019 upto March 2020 which

were cleared by the ONGC without any objection. It also appears to be

an admitted position that the contract agreement as per its terms and

conditions had come to an end on 18 March 2021 on which day the

vessel was de-hired by the ONGC and returned to the petitioner. On 18

February 2021 the petitioner and the ONGC executed a Contract

Information Letter by which a contract agreement was extended from

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 19 carbp135-22.doc

20 March 2021 to 19 April 2021. In regard to the agreed contract

period, the petitioner had raised invoices for the month of March 2021

(Exhibit A) dated 31 March 2021 and the invoices for the month of

April,2021 (Exhibit B) dated 30 April 2021 for the amounts of USD

134662.50 and USD 78147 respectively. These amounts under the said

invoices as claimed by the petitioner from the ONGC, were admittedly

for the work having been performed by the petitioner for the ONGC

under the contract agreement in question. It needs to be noted that the

ONGC per se has not disputed the performance of the contractual work

which was primarily charter of the petitioner’s vessel. It is clear from

these facts that the case of the ONGC to withhold the admitted amounts

under the invoices as raised by the petitioner, is solely for the reason

that the ONGC claims to have suffered a loss of USD 616490 on account

of the incident which had taken place on 1 September 2019 in which

the petitioner’s vessel had collided with the ONGC’s unmanned platform

RS-21. There is no other claim except for such damages being claimed

by the ONGC on account of the said incident.

20. The question before the Court in considering the prayers as made

in the present proceedings filed under Section 9 would be whether the

petitioner is justified in seeking an order of deposit, and an injunction

against the ONGC from invoking the performance of bank guarantee or

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 20 carbp135-22.doc

its return in the facts in hand. In my opinion, there is much substance in

the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner that the claim of USD

616490 as being asserted by the ONGC which is a claim for damages as

the ONGC claims to have suffered on account of the petitioner’s neglect

in maintaining the vessel resulting into the vessel colliding with the

ONGC’s unmanned platform RS-21, is admittedly a claim for

unliquidated damages. From the record, it clearly appears that there are

different reports, one referred and submitted on behalf of the petitioner

and the other an assertion of the ONGC referring to different amounts of

claim in respect of such damages which had occurred due to the incident

which had taken place on 1 September 2019. In this situation, certainly

being a claim not of liquidated damages, the correct quantum of

damages as suffered by the ONGC would be required to be ascertained

considering the clear provisions of Section 73 and 74 of the Indian

Contract Act and till such amount of damages as claimed to be suffered

by ONGC is proved, it cannot be accepted that the amount of USD

616490 as claimed by the ONGC is an ascertained, correct and an

indisputed claim. ONGC needs to prove such claim only in the arbitral

proceedings and on the basis of evidence on which the arbitral tribunal

on the basis of evidence and the contractual clauses in question, would

be required to make an appropriate award.

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 21 carbp135-22.doc

21. The question, however, is whether on the basis of such

unascertained claim for damages as made by the ONGC and which

appears to be not directly connected with the actual contractual work

under such charter party agreement, can the ONGC deny and/or

withhold payment of the invoice amounts as claimed by the petitioner ?

22. Prima facie to my mind, the ONGC would not be correct to

withhold the payments of the invoices amount to the petitioner for more

than one reason. Firstly, for the reason that although the incident had

taken place on 1 September 2019 and the probable loss suffered by the

ONGC could be almost immediately known or ascertained soon after the

incident, the ONGC for the first time almost after 16 months from the

date of the incident by its letter dated 17 December 2020 made a claim

against the petitioner for an amount of USD 616490 as damages

suffered by it. This despite the fact that after three months of the

incident, the petitioner’s expert UBA Insurance and Surveyor and Loss

Assessors LLP submitted their damage survey report dated 5 December

2019. Secondly, the ONGC continued with the charter of the petitioner

vessel subsequent to the period 1 September 2019 as also having taken

services of the petitioner’s vessels entertained and honoured the invoices

as raised by the petitioner for the period September 2019 to March

2020. Such contractual conduct of the ONGC makes it quite clear that

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 22 carbp135-22.doc

the ONGC never had any grievance with regard to performance of the

charter party agreement by the petitioner. Thirdly, it is not in dispute

that till the expiry of the contract period i.e. upto 18 March 2021, the

ONGC indisputedly utilized the petitioner’s vessel and handed over the

same to the petitioner on expiry of the period of charter. This being the

case, in my opinion, there is no justification for the ONGC to withhold

payment of invoice amounts payable to the petitioner.

23. Even otherwise the invoices in no manner are disputed by the

ONGC, thus, when the amounts payable to the petitioner are indisputed,

the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Act would certainly be

empowered to grant interim measures as Section 9 would mandate that

the arbitral interest of the parties be protected. It is well settled that the

ambit of Section 9 of the Act confers a wide discretion on the Court to

grant expansive interim measures, as may appear to the Court just and

convenient, keeping in mind the arbitral interest of the parties and

following all judicious principles. Although, the Court would be guided

by the principles for grant of injunctions as provided for under Order 39

Rule 1 and 2 or the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil

Procedure for securing the amounts, however, the Court would not be

required to follow the strict rigours of these provisions in considering

the reliefs under Section 9 of the Act. A reference can be made to a

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 23 carbp135-22.doc

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nimbus Communications

Ltd v BCCI, (2012 (5) Bom CR 114). Dr.Justice D.Y.Chandrachud (as His

Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed that the power

under Section 9 cannot be carried out in an uncharted territory ignoring

the basic principles of procedural law contained in the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, however, the rigors of every procedural provision in

the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be put into place to defeat the grant

of relief which would subserve the paramount interests of justice and a

balance has to be drawn between the two considerations in the facts of

each case.

24. A learned Single Judge of this Court (G.S.Patel, J.) in Kreuz

Subsea Pte. Ltd. Vs. Valentine Maritime Ltd. & Anr. (supra) referring to a

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case Jagdish Ahuja v

Cupino Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine Bom 849] following the decision in

Nimbus Communications Ltd. (supra) has held that the scope of Section

9 is very broad. It was observed that the court has discretion, to be

exercised judiciously, and the principles of Order 38 Rule 5 and Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 although would guide the Courts, however, a Section 9

Court would not be unduly bound by these provisions, the underlying

principle being to make arbitration an effective form of dispute

resolution. In such decision, the Court has directed the ONGC to deposit

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 24 carbp135-22.doc

the amounts, although the amounts were payable by the ONGC in its

capacity as a garnishee.

25. An appeal before the Division Bench against the decision of the

learned Single Judge in Kreuz Subsea Pte.Ltd. & Anr. (supra), came to

be dismissed. The Division Bench confirmed the orders passed by the

learned Single Judge in directing deposit of the amounts observing that

it was a case where the appellant-Valentine Maritime Ltd. has wrongly

withheld the admitted invoices by raising untenable conditions and

when the contractual work was admittedly carried out and only

thereafter the invoices were raised, for which payments were also

already made by the ONGC in favour of Valentine Maritime Ltd., who

was liable to make payment of the amount to respondent no.1-Kreuz

Subsea Pte.Ltd.-the sub-contractor.

26. I do not intend to delve on the other decisions as cited on behalf

of the petitioner as they reflect a similar position in law as discussed

above.

27. Thus adverting to the above principles of law in their applicability

to the facts of the present case, in my opinion, the petitioner has clearly

made out a prima facie case for the relief, that the ONGC needs to

deposit the undisputed invoice amounts in this Court pending the

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 25 carbp135-22.doc

arbitral proceedings. There cannot be any justification for the ONGC to

withhold such amount and more particularly on the premise that it has a

claim of unliquidated damages against the petitioner on account of the

incident which had taken place on 1 September 2019. The damages so

claimed by the ONGC are certainly neither admitted nor ascertained in a

manner known to law.

28. In so far as the reliefs concerning invocation of performance bank

guarantee is concerned, it would be necessary to note some of the

relevant clauses of the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee in question

itself is titled as ‘Performance Guarantee’. Clause (5) provides that the

guarantee of the bank shall remain in force during the period that is

taken for the performance of the contract. Clause (5) reads thus:

“5. The Bank further agrees that the Guarantee herein contained shall
remain in full force during the period that is taken for the performance
of the CONTRACT and all dues of ONGC under or by virtue of this
CONTRACT have been fully paid and its claim satisfied or discharged or
till ONGC discharges this guarantee in writing, whichever is earlier.”

29. It is thus clear that by the very terms of such bank guarantee, it

has to remain in force during the period that was taken for the

performance of the contract, namely the contract agreement period from

20 March 2018 till 18 March 2021 and the extended period, and it is

during such period all dues of the ONGC as borne out by the words ‘by

virtue of this contract’ are to be fully paid by the bank, and accordingly

on such claim of the ONGC being satisfied and/or discharged or till

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 26 carbp135-22.doc

ONGC discharges the guarantee in writing, whichever is earlier, the bank

guarantee would remain in force. The ONGC has not discharged the

bank guarantee in writing, however, the earlier event namely, the expiry

of the period for which such performance guarantee was extended has

taken place, by virtue of the operation of clause 3 of the contract

agreement. Although it is a settled law that judicial interference in the

matter of enforcement of a bank guarantee is limited and subject to the

exception of fraud of an egregious nature and where special equities

which imply an irretrievable injury or injustice would occur; and where

the bank guarantee was not invoked strictly in terms and tenor of the

bank guarantee, the terms of the bank guarantee would be required to

be honoured and complied. It is also a settled principle of law that the

invocation of the bank guarantee will have be in accordance with the

terms of the bank guarantee or the invocation itself would be bad. The

test of special equities or irretrievable injury is a matter assessible by the

Court and the issue would be decided on the facts as presented by the

parties before the Court when prayer for stay of notice of invocation is

made. (See. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,

(1999)8 SCC 436).

30. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors., (2016 SCC

OnLine Bom 5311), a Division Bench of this Court was considering an

appeal arising from an ad-interim order passed by the learned Single

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 27 carbp135-22.doc

Judge in the matter of invocation of a performance bank guarantee and

against the directions to deposit the proceeds in the account of a third

party and not of the beneficiary. Learned Single Judge pending the

decision on the notice of motion granted an ad-interim protective relief.

The bank guarantee in question in the said case was a performance bank

guarantee which came to be invoked and in a manner not in consonance

with the terms of the performance bank guarantee. In such context the

Division Bench considering the submissions that the performance bank

guarantee was for due performance of the respective obligation under

the contract and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 having abandoned the

project, there could not be one side performance of the contract by the

appellant and as there was no failure of performance, it was observed

that the judicial intervention was permissible. The Court observed that

the terms and conditions of the performance bank guarantee were

required to be followed strictly and that the bank was under an

obligation to discharge its liability under those terms only, specifically

when, there is no case of any assignment of the performance bank

guarantee. The Division Bench approving the observations as made by

the learned Single Judge, continued the grant of the protective reliefs.

31. In M/s.KSE Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Project Director,

Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board & Anr. ,( A.P. 231 OF 2021, decided

on 23.11.2021), the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court also

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 28 carbp135-22.doc

considering the case of performance bank guarantee construing the provisions

of such bank guarantee observed that the clauses of the contract clearly

demonstrate that the bank guarantee was furnished towards performance

security. It was observed that the there can be no issue with regard to

performance since the petitioner has already received 90% of the contract

price It was observed that the letter invoking the bank guarantee also

demonstrates that there cannot be any performance issue under the

contract, as also the invocation letter did not contain any allegation of a

breach of performance/obligations by the petitioner therein. It is in these

circumstances, the Court confirmed the injunction granted by the ad-

interim order passed on the said proceedings restraining the bank from

making payment under the bank guarantee.

32. In my opinion, applying the above principles, the only conclusion

which can be drawn in the facts of the present case is that the ONGC would

not be authorized to invoke the performance bank guarantee (PBG) for the

plain reason that the contract agreement stands fully performed as also the

vessel of the petitioner under the contract agreement has also been de-

hired and handed over to the petitioner. If this be the case as to what has

been agreed by the bank in terms of clause (5) of the performance bank

guarantee, and as noted above, the bank guarantee itself was to lapse when

the performance of the contract agreement itself had come to an end and

no further obligation under the contract was required to be discharged by

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 29 carbp135-22.doc

the petitioner. Hence, even considering the terms and conditions of the

PBG, it would not be permissible for the ONGC to invoke the performance

bank guarantee (PBG). It may be observed that in terms of the plain

wordings of clause (5) of the bank guarantee, the bank guarantee was to

remain in force during the period that was taken for the performance of the

contract, and as the amount being claimed by the ONGC was a claim in the

nature of unliquidated damages, it would be required to be presumed the

same being outside the scope of the performance of the contract, which

itself stood discharged, the performance bank guarantee had ceased to

remain in force. For such reason, there would not be any further obligation

on the petitioner to extend the performance bank guarantee.

33. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed in

terms of the following order:-

ORDER

(i) Pending the arbitral proceedings, respondent No.1 ONGC is

directed to deposit in this Court, within a period of four weeks

from today, the amount payable to the petitioner under the

unpaid invoices dated 31 March 2021 and 30 April 2021 ,

‘Exhibit A’ and ‘Exhibit B’ respectively.

(ii) After the deposit of the above amounts is received by the

Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, the Prothonotary

and Senior Master of this Court shall invest the said amount in a

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::

PVR 30 carbp135-22.doc

fixed deposit in a nationalized bank initially for a period of three

years.

(iii) Respondent No.1-ONGC is directed not to invoke the

performance bank guarantee dated 7 March 2018 as extended.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to invoke the arbitral proceedings

within a period of one month from today.

(v) All contentions of the parties on the arbitral proceedings are

expressly kept open.

(vi) Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]

::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2023 10:50:59 :::