Post-Award Section 9 Relief for Extension of Bank Guarantee beyond period
judgment dated 15.6.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.17832 of 2026 of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Swiber offshore Construction PTE Limited
Post-Award Section 9 Relief for Extension & Continuation of Bank Guarantee
Post-Award Section 9 Interim Relief is Exceptional
Bombay HC – Post-Award Section 9 Interim Relief for Extension and Continuation of the Bank Guarantee Denied – No Enforceable Right after expiry of validity period of Bank Guarantee
Bombay HC Refused ONGC Post-Award Section 9 Interim Relief During Pendency of Section 34 petition for extension and continuation of Bank Guarantee of Swiber.
In this case, Swiber had furnished bank security for possible liability of liquidated damages as per the contract dated 3.7.2010 with ONGC.
The work was to be completed before 30.4.2011.
Clause 6.3.2 provided that if there is delay in completing the work or if Swiber failed to perform its obligations under the contract, ONGC would recover liquidated damages at the prescribed week for every week of delay.
Clause 6.3.4 provided for bank guarantee equal to the maximum amount of liquidated damages.
The project was, however, completed on 24.5.2012 after granting number of extensions. On 18.2.2013, the ONGC issued completion certificate.
On 30.9.2025, the arbitral award was passed that ONGC was not entitled to recover liquidated damages and directed to return the bank guarantee.
ONGC filed section 34 petition on 5.1.2026. On 16.1.2026, ONGC filed section 36(3) application for continuation of the said bank guarantee.
Section 9 petition was filed on 15.3.2026 for continuation and extension of a bank guarantee of the respondent, pending its challenge the arbitral award.
Section 9 petition was served on 1.6.2026 on Swiber only after the SC Judgment that section 9 interim relief can be claimed even after award.
Thus, ONGC was aware of the expiry of the bank guarantee during the above period.
It was, therefore, HELD that (I) the real issue whether ONGC presently possesses legally enforceable right to seek extension of BG beyond bank guarantee and (ii) on consideration of all the facts of the case, ONGC has failed to establish entitlement to the exceptional interim protection
dispute between the parties has passed through several stages over a period of more than fifteen years. The matter began with a contract entered into between ONGC and Swiber on 3 July 2010 for carrying out offshore works in the Bombay High area.
During the earlier litigation, the consent terms provided that the bank guarantee would remain alive for 120 days after the arbitral award. The Award was passed on 30.9.2025 and the period of 120 days was over on 28.1.2026.
However, ONGC wants not only extension of said guarantee but its continuation during pendency of section 34 petition.
Viewed from this perspective, it was found that ONGC was in effect seeking enlargement of its rights beyond the period agreed in the consent terms. Therefore, section 9 is not applicable to extend existing rights beyond the limit agreed by the parties. Not only that but the ONGC did not disclose the said consent terms dated 5.9.2016 recorded before the High Court on 8.9.2016 and placed the same in this section 9 petition.
