IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. – Respondents
O.M.P. (COMM) 487 of 2018 and I.A. 16396 of 2018 & 2448 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. genesis of dispute arising from arbitration. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. summary of claims and tribunal's decisions. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. ministry challenges based on award legality. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. reliance's argument on intervention limits. (Para 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 5. court's assessment of arbitral proceeding's legality. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
| S. No. | Particulars | Page No. |
| I | Introduction | 3 |
| II | Genesis of the Dispute Leading to Arbitration | 4 |
| III | Summary of Claims & Summary of Tribunal's Decisions | 6 |
| IV | Summary of the Production Sharing Contract | 10 |
| V | Legal and Contractual Architecture | 12 |
| VI | Ministry's Grounds of Challenge to the Arbitral Award | 19 |
| VII | Submissions on Behalf of Reliance | 31 |
| VIII | Ministry's Submissions in Rejoinder | 40 |
| IX | Discussion and Conclusions | 43 |
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By way of the present petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (`A&C Act' for short), the petitioner Union of India (through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas) impugns Arbitral Award dated 24.07.2018 (`impugned award', for short) rendered by a 2:1 majority of the arbitral tribunal, which decided the disputes that had arisen between the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas of the Government of India (`Ministry', for short) and M/s Reliance Industries Limited (`Reliance' for short), M/s. Niko (NECO) Limited (`Niko' for short) and M/s. British Petroleum Exploration (Alpha) Limited (`British Petroleum' for short) from a Production Sharing Contract dated 12.04.2000 (`PSC' for short). The PSC related to exploration and extraction of natural gas from Block KG-DWN-98/3 in the Krishna-Godavari Basin off the coast of Andhra Pradesh in India (`Reliance Block' for short). For abundant clarity, under the PSC, Reliance was one of the constituents of the `Contractor', the other two being Niko and (subsequently) British Petroleum; and Reliance was the `Operator'.
2. Reliance was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings; and the Ministry was the respondent. By way of the impugned award, two of the members of the arbitral tribunal have decided certain issues in favour of Reliance; whereas the third member has decided the matter in favour of the Ministry. In essence and substance the majority has held inter-alia that "Reliance is fully entitled to produce all hyrdrocarbons resulting from Petroleum Operations conducted within its Contract Area which may include hydrocarbons that could have migrated from an adjacent block."
3. The Ministry has now approached this court challenging the decision of the arbitral tribunal as held by the majority.
II. GENESIS OF THE DISPUTE LEADING TO ARBITRATION
4. The PSC was signed between the Ministry on the one hand and 02 corporate entities viz. M/s. Reliance Industries Limited and Niko on the other. Subsequently, by way of a Supplementary Contract dated 21.02.2011, Reliance transferred a portion of its `Participating Interest' under the PSC as defined therein, in favour of British Petroleum.
5. Disputes arose when, sometime in the year 2013, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (`ONGC' for short), by its letter dated 22.07.2013 addressed to the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (`DGH. for short), informed the latter that there was "evidence of lateral continuity of gas pools" as between the Reliance Block and the adjacent blocks allocated to ONGC bearing name `IG Block' and `Block KG-DWN-98/2' (`ONGC Blocks' for short). In simple terms, this meant that the gas pools of the Reliance Block and the ONGC Blocks appeared to be connected with possible migration of gas between the two blocks.
6. This led ONGC to file a writ petition bearin
Bharti Airtel vs. Union of India
Champsey Bhara vs. Jivraj Balloo, AIR 1923 PC 66 [Para 15.10
RNRL vs. RIL, (2010)7 SCC 1 [Para 16.1, 16.4, 40, 46
Union of India vs. Bungoo Steel
Amway (India) Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia & Anr.
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra
Common Cause vs. Union of India
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. DMRC
HRD Corporation vs. Gail (India) Ltd.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. UOI & Ors.
Larsen and Toubro Limited Scomi Engineering BHD vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Muni Lal vs Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd.
Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena Vijay Khetan and Ors.
Patel Engg. Ltd. vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Ltd.
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.
Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors. vs. Union of India
Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Sasan Power Ltd. vs. North American Coal Corporation. (India) (P.) Ltd.
Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. NHAI
State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Associated Contractors
Venkataraja & ors vs. Vidyane Doureredjaperumal (through LRs) & Ors.
Point of Law; Contract - Extention of Contract - Terms conditions - There cannot be extension of Production Sharing Contract unconditionally, on same terms and conditions which were prevail
An arbitral tribunal must operate within the agreed scope of arbitration; courts will not intervene unless there are clear grounds established under specific legal provisions.
The court affirmed that claims for breach of contract are subject to statutory limitation periods, which cannot be extended by claims of continuing breaches.
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
An arbitral award can only be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the appellant establishes that the award is in conflict with the public policy of India, is p....
The court upheld that obligations under gas supply contracts are subject to government directives, affirming the validity of pricing based on regulatory compliance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.