* IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 19.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 28.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 393/2018, I.A. 12438/2018, I.A. 9666/2020 &

I.A. 2738/2022 UEM INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr.

Adv. with Mr. Samir Malik, Ms. Snehal Kaila, Ms. Yachana Gupta, Mr. Udbhav Gady &

Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advs.

versus ONGC LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Puri, Ms. Surbhi Gupta & Mr. Sahil Grewal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

J U D G M E N T

1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) for setting aside of the award dated 14.12.2017.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner M/s UEM India Private Limited, a registered company was the successful bidder in a tender invited by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation („ONGC‟) for installation of one Effluent Treatment Plant (for short „ETP‟) and three ETP-cum Water Injection Plants at four sites in Assam along with maintenance for seven years. The parties entered into contract on lump sum turnkey Signature Not Veri O fie .M basis. The work was awarded on 30.03.2011 for a lump sum amount of Rs.119,34,58,347/-. The project was to be completed within thirty four months from the date of issuance of the Notification of Award (for short „NOA‟) i.e. by 29.01.2014.

2.1 Clause 27 of the General Conditions of Contract (for short „GCC‟) provided for dispute resolution through arbitration and the petitioner invoked arbitration. The petitioner claimed prolongation costs aggregating to Rs.10,30,00,000/-; losses to the tune of Rs.7,23,55,402/- due to breach of contract; losses amounting to Rs.105,60,00,000/- on account of being placed on a holiday list and amounts towards resources committed/consumed, damages, interest on capital cost and illegal invocation of the advance bank guarantee (for short „ABG‟) and performance bank guarantee (for short „PBG‟).

2.2 The respondent filed counter claims claiming:

(i) Compensation amount of Rs.86,54,26,860.44/- towards restitution of loss and damages on account of payments made to third party vendors;

(ii) Rs.15,19,72,222.33/- for production and revenue loss due to non-performance of various acts by the petitioner;

(iii) Rs.5,70,84,812/- incurred towards establishment costs for various acts of omission by the petitioner;

(iv) Cost of re-tendering to the tune of Rs.130,65,41,652/-;

(v) Rs.7,35,82,647/- as Liquidated damages (for short „LD‟);

(vi) Refund of Rs.2,95,00,483.61/- for provisional progressive payments;

(vii) Rs.11,93,45,835/- towards PBG;

Signature Not Veri O fie .M (viii) Rs.53,93,047/- for interest on non-utilization of advances given by the respondent to the petitioner; and (ix) Lastly Rs.23,86,91,669/- towards compensation of the loss and damages suffered due to wilful non-performance of the contract by the petitioner.

2.3 The claim of the petitioner of Rs.13,56,376/- for services rendered for soil investigation was accepted, the invocation of ABG of Rs.2,95,00,484/- was held to be illegal and the respondent was directed to refund it along with interest @ 12%, from the date of encashment till filing of the statement of claim. Interest pendente lite was awarded @ 9% per annum.

2.4 The counter claim for LD of Rs.7,35,82,647/- was accepted, interest @12% was granted from the date of termination of the contract till filing of the counter claim and pendente lite interest @ 9% per annum. The amount of PBG was determined as the quantum of damages over and above the LD. Both parties filed applications under Section 33 of the Act for correction of the errors. The application of the respondent was accepted and the typographical error in mentioning the LD in paragraph 474 of the award as Rs.73,58,264/- instead of Rs.7,35,82,647/- was corrected. Consequently, the interest awarded on the amount was modified. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the majority decision, being time-barred but the minority held that once