The court confirmed that time limitation is procedural law governed by the seat of arbitration's law, dismissing the appeal as unsubstantiated.

A. Introduction

[1] The appeal before us concerns an arbitral award. The Plaintiff who was unsuccessful in its attempt to set aside an award handed down by an arbitral body in a majority decision ("Majority Award") had appealed against the High Court's decision dated 11 February 2022. The High Court had dismissed the Plaintiff's Originating Summons to set aside the Majority Award dated 28 February 2020 ("Plaintiff's OS") with costs of RM30,000.00.

B. Factual Background

[2] For better understanding of the matter at hand, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case that has led to the Majority Award. The parties will be referred to as they were at the High Court.

[3] The Plaintiff in this appeal is a company by the name of Hindustani Oil Exploration Company ("HOEC"). The Defendant is an Indian company known as Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc ("HEPI").

[4] The Plaintiff, the Defendant and two other companies by the name of Tata Petrodyne Limited ("TPL") and Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ("ONGC") were parties to a Joint Operating Agreement ("JOA") dated 5 December 1995. In other words, these four companies are collectively, "the Parties" in relation to the said JOA.

[5] The JOA was an agreement entered into pursuant to the express requirements of a Production Sharing Contract dated 31 December 1994 ("PSC") between the Parties and the Government of India.

[6] Pursuant to the PSC, the Government of India as owner of the petroleum resources in the Cauvery Basin, offshore India (specifically identified as Block CY-OS-90/1) ("Contract Area") granted permission to the Parties to conduct "petroleum operations" in the Contract Area, with ONGC being the petroleum exploration license holder.

[7] The JOA was subsequently modified by an Addendum Agreement dated 19 April 1999.

[8] By the operation of the JOA and the PSC, the parties collectively constituted the "Contractor" who were responsible for "Petroleum Operations" within the Contract Area.

[9] Under art 6.5 of the PSC, amongst the members of the Contractor, the Defendant (HEPI) assumed the role of "Operator" for Petroleum Operations and was responsible for the performance of the operating functions of the Contractor.

[10] The JOA regulates the rights and responsibilities of the Parties including the expenditures incurred by the Defendant (in its capacity as the Operator) towards operations conducted in the Contract Area (which is required to be shared among the Parties in proportion to their respective 'Participating Interests' in the JOA).

[11] Article 7.1 of the JOA prescribed that all costs and expenses incurred by the Operator ie HEPI on behalf of the Contractor in carrying out the Joint Operations under the JOA shall be borne and paid by the members of the Contractor in proportion to their "Participating Interests" and shall be determined and/or allocated in accordance with the "JOA Accounting Procedure". At the material time, the "Participating Interests" of each member was as follows:

ONGC - 40%, HOEC - 21%, TPL - 21% and HEPI - 18%.

[12] The Contract Area was in production from about 27 June 1997 until about 30 July 2011. In other words, by the year 2011 the Contract Area was shut down.

[13] After the Contract Area was shut down, the Defendant claimed that there were expenses incurred and continued to be incurred by the Defendant in the performance of its obligations under the PSC and the JOA and therefore, ONGC, the Plaintiff and TPL were bound under the JOA to pay their respective shares towards such expenses, in accordance with their Participating Interests.

[14] A dispute arose with respect to the parties' liability for such expenses. However, the dispute could n