1

A.F.R.

RESERVED

Court No. - 21

Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND

CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 94 of 2022

Appellant :- Hba Offshore Pte. Ltd.

Respondent :- Samsung Heavy Industries India Private Limited

Counsel for Appellant :- Vinayak Mithal

Counsel for Respondent :- Kartikeya Saran

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

(Per : Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1.

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 arises out of the order dated 26.8.2022 passed by a learned Judge on an

application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996¹ (Arbitration & Conciliation Application u/s 11(4)

No.- 98 of 2022, HBA Offshore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Samsung Heavy Industries

Limited India), whereby that application was dismissed.

BACKGROUND:

2.

As it appears in the appellant's affidavit, the respondent floated a

tender/RFQ (request for quote) for their project-provision of

Accommodation Work Barge², with associate services required during the

Hook-up and commissioning of RUBY FPSO for Reliance Industries

Limited at MJ Field, in the block KG-DWN-98/3 (KG-D6), in the Bay of

Bengal, East Coast of India on 23.2.2022. At the bidding stage, the

appellant, inter alia, offered a Floatel Vessel called ‘Nor Goliath'³ to the

respondent and also submitted all technical documents and certificates

pertaining to the said vessel to the respondent. Telford Marine DMCC⁴ is the

disponent owner of ‘Nor Goliath’ which was to provide the said vessel to the

respondent through the appellant. Based on the request of the respondent, the

1

Act of 1996

2

AWB

3

Nor Goliath/said vessel

4

Telford

2

appellant also obtained a confirmation letter from Telford pertaining to the

said vessel and also provided the preliminary mobilization plan of the said

vessel from Walvisbay, Namibia to UAE and from UAE to Kakinada, India.

The respondent issued a Letter of Intent⁵ on 28.4.2022 to the appellant

regarding the work of AWB on the terms and conditions set out in the LOI.

The LOI authorized the appellant to commence the work including the

detailed design pedestal and gangway foundation, including procurement of

material, fabrication of pedestal and gangway foundation and installation of

gangway pedestal⁶. The LOI was valid and binding till 14.5.2022 and was to

be superseded by a full-fledged contract, that is, the General Conditions of

the Contract and all exhibits thereto⁷, under which the appellant was required

to continue to perform the work at the date of execution of GCC, upon the

parties reaching an agreement on the outstanding terms and conditions.

3.

Under the LOI, the appellant was to make provision for AWB (Nor

Goliath) retrofitted with electric-hydraulic telescopic personnel transfer

gangway from another vessel namely, Telford 25 to Nor Goliath. This

installation activity was required to be carried out at UAE. After the

installation of gangway, the respondent was required to inspect Nor Goliath

and any observation and comments during the inspection were to be

satisfactorily resolved by the appellant to make the said vessel ‘fit for

purpose’ before it departed from UAE to Kakinada, India.

4.

The appellant submitted to the respondent a contracting commitment

letter dated 9.5.2022 from Telford. By this letter, Telford acknowledged that

it was committed to provide Nor Goliath for the duration of the project and

operate jointly in India with the appellant to support the respondent for AWB

with associated services during hook-up and commissioning of RUBY FPSO

at MJ Field, in the block KG-DWN-98/3 (KG-D6), in the Bay of Bengal,

East Coast of India, subject to the terms of the LOI.

5.

The appellant, by an e-mail dated 11.5.2022 sought extension from

5

LOI

6

the work

7

GCC

3

the respondent of the timeline/LOI till 20.5.2022. The appellant was granted

the extension and the binding of the LOI was extended from 14.5.2022 to

2