1. This petition is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for impugning the order dated 19th May, 2014 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application under section 17 filed by the petitioner for interim measures of protection.

2. In the arbitration petition for interim measures the petitioner had prayed for an order and direction against the respondent to deposit monies to the extent of the outstanding amounts of the petitioner under the Mud Services Contracts in the sum of USD2495809.75 and cost or in the alternative to provide security in regard to the said claim. The petitioner had also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating, disposing of and/or otherwise encumbering any property and/or assets of the respondent until the final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and directing the respondent to disclose its assets and properties by way of affidavit.

Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:

3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore. The respondent is having registered office at New Delhi and also has a Mumbai Office. The respondent is engaged in conducting various businesses. The respondent has entered into several contracts with Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd for charter hire of several land rigs with integrated services. During the period between June, 2009 and April 2010 the petitioner and the respondent entered into five contracts for supplying materials, equipments, products and personnel in relation to mud services for a period of three years.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the contracts commenced in or around 2009 when the Mud Engineering Personnel were fully mobilized and started operations. All the contracts entered into between the parties are materially identical. Under clause 2.4 of the “Mud Services Contracts “ the respondent had agreed to pay to the petitioner on a day rate basis payable from the first date of spudding of well with Mud Engineering Services and on continued operational days during the term of the contract. The petitioner raised various invoices along with supporting documents. Under clause 6.1 of the contract, the respondent agreed to pay to the petitioner undisputed invoices within 60 days from the date of submission of such invoices.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that around June, 2012 onwards the petitioner sent reminders to the respondent and placed on record that the respondent has to pay to the petitioner USD 2495809.75 towards Mud Services Contract alone. It is the case of the petitioner that the invoices sent by the petitioner were never returned, disputed or challenged on any ground. The respondent even failed to pay invoices on opening letter of credit.

6. By email dated 10th May, 2012 the respondent informed the petitioner that the respondent was waiting for their payment worth USD 90 millions to be released by ONGC which was held up with them due to various reasons against their integrated services project, Bokaro and other integrated drilling projects across India. The respondents assured the petitioner that a payment of USD 2 million would be released to the petitioner within the month of 2012 and balance payment would also be cleared in the month of June or July, 2012 hopefully as the respondent was expecting that the issue of their held up payments with ONGC would also be resolved by them.

7. On 7th June, 2012 the petitioner issued a notice for payment of outstanding invoices upon the respondent and sent a final reminder to remit the total outstanding amount of USD 4095054.07 including amount of USD 1275971.20 to the petitioner within a period of seven calender days and informed that in case of failure to pay, the petitioner would withdraw their equipments/material and personnel and suspend performance services in each case under the contracts and initiate actio