LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited — HCBM20145552026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 9. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.

Next hearing 23-Apr-2026

CNR: HCBM020145552026

e-Filing Number

22-04-2026

Filing Number

CARBP/14555/2026

Filing Date

23-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

  2. 2.Axis Bank Limited

Case History

  1. 23-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    Case Summary Larsen and Toubro Limited filed a post-award petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief to prevent ONGC from invoking a bank guarantee worth USD 9,710,490 + EUR 529,370 + INR 52,42,50,100. The petition was disposed of after ONGC's counsel assured the court that ONGC does not intend to encash the guarantee (valid till 30 April 2026) while pursuing a separate Section 34 challenge to the arbitral awards. The petitioner retained liberty to file a fresh petition if circumstances change. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Larsen and Toubro Limited filed a post-award petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief to prevent ONGC from invoking a bank guarantee worth USD 9,710,490 + EUR 529,370 + INR 52,42,50,100. The petition was disposed of after ONGC's counsel assured the court that ONGC does not intend to encash the guarantee (valid till 30 April 2026) while pursuing a separate Section 34 challenge to the arbitral awards. The petitioner retained liberty to file a fresh petition if circumstances change. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case