PMP INFRATACK LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Holding
The ban order cannot be sustained and is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, PMP Infratack Ltd., challenged an order by Oil and Natural Gas Ltd (ONGC) that banned it from contracting, which was based on the termination of their contract. Both parties admitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the dispute was referred to arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal held that the termination was improper and awarded Rs.200,000 to the petitioner. ONGC argued that it would challenge the award and cited the petitioner’s delay in executing the award as a reason to maintain the ban. The Court held that since the termination was declared invalid by the arbitral award, the ban could not be justified. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the ban order issued by ONGC, predicated on contract termination, can be sustained after an arbitral award declares the termination improper.
- Whether the petitioner’s delay in executing the arbitral award bars relief from the ban.
Subjects
Judgment
C/SCA/6715/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6715 of 2025
==========================================================
PMP INFRATACK LIMITED
Versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BHOOMI M THAKORE(6237) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HARSH K THAKAR(7172) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UNMESH SHUKLA, SR. ADV. with MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 08/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. An order to banning by the Oil and Natural Gas Limited
(ONGC) is called in question in this writ petition.
2. It is not in dispute that the order of banning was solely
because the contract that the petitioner entered into with
ONGC had been terminated and the termination of a
contract was by itself a sufficient ground for banning a
contractor.
3. It is now admitted by both the learned Senior Counsel
that during pending the pendency of the writ petition, the
dispute between the parties had been referred to
Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/6715/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
Arbitration and an arbitral award has been passed, in
which it is held that the termination of the contract was
improper.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as
a matter of fact, the award of Rs. 200,000/- is ordered in
favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for ONGC submits that
the ONGC is contemplating challenging the award and he
also seeks to argue that there was an immense delay on
the part of the petitioner in executing the award and,
therefore, the order of banning should not be interfered
with.
6. In our view, since the order of banning the petitioner was
solely based on termination and now that the termination
has been held to be bad by the arbitral Tribunal, the order
of banning the petitioner cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. Petition
stands allowed accordingly.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SUDHIR
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: SUDHIR ACHUTHAN EZHUTHASSAN(HC00192), GOV, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/05/2026 13:47:57
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.