Post-Award Section 9 relief requires exceptional circumstances surpassing the threshold for routine interim protection.

ONGC hired Swiber in 2010 for an offshore project valued at USD 148.2 million

The project was completed on May 24, 2012, after multiple extensions granted with a reservation of ONGC’s right to liquidated damages (LD)

Per Consent Terms recorded in 2016, Swiber maintained a Bank Guarantee (BG) of USD 14.82 million, which they agreed would remain valid for only 120 days post-award

On September 30, 2025, an Arbitral Tribunal rejected ONGC’s claim for LD and directed the return of the BG

ONGC challenged the award under Section 34 and filed this Section 9 petition seeking to extend the BG beyond its June 15, 2026, expiry, citing Swiber’s insolvency/liquidation in Singapore and the risk of non-recovery

The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the Court

Supreme Court precedent in Home Care Retail Marts (P) Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi (2026), which established that while an unsuccessful party can invoke Section 9 post-award, the threshold is significantly higher and requires "extraordinary" or "rare and compelling" circumstances

Distinguished ONGC v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2026), where interim protection was granted because the Tribunal had partially upheld the claim, unlike the total rejection in the present case

The Court reasoned that once an award is delivered, the findings—including the rejection of ONGC's claim—operate unless set aside

The Court found that ONGC failed to disclose the 2016 Consent Terms in this petition, which specifically limited the BG's life to 120 days post-award (expiring Jan 28, 2026); seeking an extension now would effectively rewrite a voluntary contract

While Swiber’s liquidation in Singapore created a risk of non-recovery, this "apprehension" did not create a legal right to override the Tribunal’s decision to return the security

ONGC’s delay in filing the Section 9 petition (waiting until May 2026 for a June 15 expiry) undermined its plea of genuine urgency

The Court concluded that an "arguable" challenge under Section 34 is insufficient to meet the "extraordinary" standard required to maintain security after a total loss in arbitration

It held that ONGC failed to establish "exceptional and compelling circumstances" to justify post-award protection under Section 9, specifically refusing to direct the renewal or extension of the USD 14.82 million Bank Guarantee

The Court clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the pending Section 34 challenge

A request for stay/continuation of the BG pending appeal was also rejected as it would constitute granting the final relief already denied