* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 06.12.2024 Pronounced on: 24.02.2025 + EX.P. 93/2019 DISCOVERY DRILLING PTE LIMITED .....Decree Holder Through: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Mr.Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr.Karan Gupta &

Ms.Phalguni Nigam, Advs.

versus PARMOD KUMAR & ANR. ......Judgement Debtors Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Arpan Wadhawan, Mr.Sandeep Kumar &

Mr.Devashish Mishra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

J U D G M E N T

1. This petition has been filed under Section 44A read with Order XXI Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, „CPC‟) seeking execution of the Judgment dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Singapore International Commercial Court of the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as, „SICC‟) in Suit No.

1 of 2017.

2. As a matter of brief background, the facts in which the present Execution Petition has been filed, are narrated as under:

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that Jindal Drilling &

Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as, „JDIL‟), a company incorporated under the laws of India, entered into a contract with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed EX.P.93/2019 Page 1 of 55 (hereinafter referred to as, „ONGC‟) for providing offshore drilling services to the ONGC.

2.2 In order to provide such services, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and a joint venture of JDIL, purchased the Rig that was to be given on charter hire to JDIL.

2.3 Since the Rig required repair work, the petitioner entered into an Agreement with AKRO Group DMCC (hereinafter referred to as, „AKRO‟), a company incorporated under the laws of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, who was to provide the petitioner with Specialised Project Management (SPM) services for the activation and mobilisation of the petitioner's Rig.

2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents were the then employees of the JDIL and acted as the representatives of the petitioner for the purposes of the aforementioned Agreement. It is further claimed that in their capacity as the representatives of the petitioner, the respondents were required to work with the representatives of AKRO to obtain quotes for materials, equipment, and services for the project, and to negotiate the best prices.

2.5 The petitioner claims that due to delay on the part of AKRO in fulfilling its contractual obligations, the Rig could not be provided to JDIL on time. The petitioner claims that thereafter, disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and AKRO inter alia with respect to the payment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed EX.P.93/2019 Page 2 of 55 of invoices, and at this time, both the respondents unexpectedly resigned from the petitioner.

2.6 On 13.12.2016, AKRO initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner before the High Court of Singapore, claiming an alleged outstanding amount of project management fee and expenses under the above Agreement. The respondents are claimed to have filed their affidavits of evidence on behalf of AKRO, and also travelled to Singapore at AKRO‟s expense to support the claim made by AKRO.

2.7 The case was subsequently transferred to the SICC, before which the petitioner entered its appearance on 12.01.2017 and filed its Statement of Defence denying any liability towards AKRO, and also filed a counterclaim inter alia seeking damages and other claims under the Agreement.

2.8 By way of the Second Amendment to the counterclaim, the petitioner arrayed the respondents as defendants, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and fraud and forgery in respect of the invoices. The petitioner further claimed that the respondents had colluded and conspired with AKRO and its representatives to defraud the petitioner.

2.9 The petitioner claims that thereafter it served the respondents with not only the notices issued by the SICC on the counterclaim, but also kept the respondents abreast of all subsequent procee