Alerts & Updates 12th Jul 2019

ELP- Arbitration weekly update- ONGC Petro Additions Limited v. Tecnimont S.P.A. Anr

Latest Thought Leadership

Alerts & Updates 17th Jul 2024

Pharmaceutical Regulations: A move towards greater transparency and accountability

Read More
News & Media 17th Jul 2024

Experts bat for proper litigation policy as taxman’s delays get flak from courts

Read More
Alerts & Updates 17th Jul 2024

Rate Notifications and Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’)

Read More
News & Media 17th Jul 2024

Sector Watch: AMCs seek parity between ULIPs, equity mutual funds from Budget 2024

Read More

This week, we analyze a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in ONGC Petro Additions Limited v. Tecnimont S.P.A. & Anr.

  • In an arbitration between ONGC Petro Additions Limited (“ONGC”) and Tecnimont S.P.A.; Anr. (“Tecnimont”), ONGC sought the leave of the tribunal to file additional documents after the time period for completion of pleadings and production of documents had expired. ONGC filed an application under section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for placing additional documents and evidence on record.

    The arbitral tribunal passed an order (“Order”) rejecting the application filed by ONGC. Aggrieved by the Order, ONGC filed a petition before the Delhi High Court (“Court”) under section 34 of the Act to set aside the Order. The issue which arose for determination before the Court was whether the Order constituted an “interim award” under section 2(1) (c) of the Act and was therefore amenable to challenge under section 34 of the Act.

    The Court inter alia observed that the (i) Order was a procedural order made by the tribunal; (ii) the Order was not ‘final’ as it did not conclusively decide an ‘issue’ in the arbitration proceedings; and (iii) the Act does not allow a challenge to a procedural order passed by the arbitral tribunal. Thus, the Court held that the Order does not qualify as an ‘interim award’ under the Act and was therefore not amenable to challenge under section 34 of the Act.

    Read more