SRMB Srijan Limited [petitioner] Vs.  Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited   [respondent]

(IA No: GA 1 of 2022 In A.P.- COM 281 of 2024)

(Before Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

Facts: The petitioner/award-debtor seeks unconditional stay of an Arbitral Award dated 21.6.2022 under the second proviso to section 36(3) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue: Whether the respondent suppressed the orders of the PNGRB or the Delhi High Court for the purpose of inducing the petitioner to execute the Agreement?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/award-debtor makes the argument under 2 heads, namely, that the Agreement dated 11.5.2011 was executed in violation of the order passed by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) and an order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the Delhi High Court. Counsel submits that any act done in violation of order of Court is non est. The second argument is that the GSPA is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation as the respondent/award-holder deliberately failed to disclose show-cause notices of 3.12.2010 and 15.12.2010 which were issued to the respondent to stop any incremental activity with immediate effect till the matter was decided by the PNGRB. Counsel submits that the petitioner was hence fraudulently induced to enter into the GSPA with the respondent which was clearly voidable on the ground of fraud. It is also submitted that fraud cannot be put into any straight jacket definition and that the facts of the present case must be seen in the context of the order passed by the PNGRB and the Delhi High Court.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent: Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/award-holder places the relevant facts to deny that there was any violation of the PNGRB or the Delhi High Court orders or fraud in the form of suppression or otherwise on the part of the respondent. Counsel submits that one of the witnesses of the petitioner had himself relied upon the respondent’s Balance Sheets for the relevant financial years which disclosed the orders passed by PNGRB and the Delhi High Court. Counsel submits that the orders were in the public domain i.e on the website of the respondent.

Held: The court dismissed the present petition and held, “It is evident from the records that the petitioner’s only intention for filing the present application is to avoid making any deposit for securing the award. This would also be clear from the prayer in the application GA 1 of 2022. The respondent/award-holder has been deprived of the fruits despite the award being of 21.6.2022. The Court, hence, sees no impediment for the respondent to execute the award unless the petitioner secures the award on appropriate terms.”