R.V. EASWAR, J.:

This is an appeal filed by Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “the appellant” against the judgment and order dated 10-9-2012 passed by the learned single judge in OMP No. 482/2011 in proceedings initiated under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”, for short) by the respondents, viz., the Joint Venture of M/s. Whessoe Oil & Gas Ltd. UK and M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd(R-1) and the joint venture-companies individually. The appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Act.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal may now be noticed. A contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondents for carrying out the work of Phase-H of EPC-I6 package, for completion of the balance work of the top of the jetty facilities for the Ratnagiri LNG Terminal project (“project”, for short). This was on 8-9-2006. The work was to be executed by the joint venture (“JV”). It was divided into three phases: Phase A, Phase B and Phase C. Phase A comprises approximately 80% of the entire work. As required by the contract, the JV furnished two performance bank guarantees (PBGs) to the appellant on 21-9-2006; they were extended till 29-6-2010. The amounts were Rs. 18,44,25,120 and USD 5,203,872 respectively.

3. On 23-6-2010, the appellant by a letter requested the State Bank of India (SBI) which issued the PBGs to extend the validity of the guarantees till 31-3-2013 failing which the letter itself was asked to be treated as notice to enforce the PBGs. The joint-venture companies, who are respondents in the present appeal, approached this court in I.A. Nos. 2948-49/2012 seeking directions to restrain the appellant from enforcing any payment from the SBI under the PBGs and the SBI from making any payment to the appellant under the PBGs.

4. The case put forward by the joint-venture companies before the learned single judge in support of the IAs was that the work in connection with Phases A and B had been completed even as certified by the appellant and that the balance work, which primarily related to the commissioning of the jetty, could not be undertaken by them since the LNG ship was yet to arrive at the jetty and that in these circumstances the appellant cannot ask them to keep the PBGs alive. Basically, what was being urged was that the non-completion of the balance of work relating to the commissioning of the jetty was not attributable to the joint-venture companies.

5. When the joint venture companies had approached the court, the PBGs were about to expire on 30-6-2011, and therefore on 29-6-2011 the court passed an order directing the joint venture to have the PBGs extended till 31-7-2011 and simultaneously directed the SBI not to make payment to the appellant, if the payment had not already been made. The interim order was continued with the joint venture agreeing to get the PBGs extended from time to time. While so, the appellant informed the joint venture that the LNG vessel was likely to arrive at the jetty between 25-1-2012 and 10-2-2012; on this, the PBGs were continued to be kept alive. Ultimately when the ship arrived at the jetty on 26-3-2012 the fenders at the jetty collapsed, could not be repaired, with the result that the ship had to sail back. The court was informed on 14th May 2012 that another ship was likely to arrive only after the monsoons, i.e., after 15-10-2012.

6. It would appear that there were meetings between the parties on the issues between them from time to time and eventually a letter was written on 19-3-2012 by the JV to the appellant setting out the terms of the agreement arrived at in those meetings in respect of the outstanding issues. The letter recorded that the appellant would reimburse the JV the cost of extending the PBGs for the last 4-and-half years. Two requests were also made to the appellant: (i) to reduce the value of the bond to 2% of the current bond value in proportion to the work remaining to be executed and (ii) to ma