Arbitration Involving Refinery Upgrade And Maintenance Agreements
📌 Arbitration in Refinery Upgrade and Maintenance Agreements
1) Overview
Refinery upgrade and maintenance agreements involve contracts for:
Upgrading existing refinery infrastructure (processing units, pipelines, storage).
Periodic maintenance of refinery equipment.
Technical services, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) work.
Common disputes include:
Delay in upgrades or maintenance work.
Non-performance or defective work.
Disputes over payment, cost overruns, and variations.
Safety and environmental compliance failures.
Termination of maintenance or upgrade contracts.
Why arbitration is preferred:
Projects involve highly technical and specialized work, requiring expert decision-makers.
Commercial sensitivity and confidentiality are critical.
International parties often prefer arbitration under recognized rules (e.g., ICC, SIAC, LCIA).
Enforceable awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India) or New York Convention internationally.
2) Key Issues in Arbitration for Refinery Projects
Scope of work disputes – whether certain upgrades or maintenance fall under contract.
Delay claims – determining responsibility for excusable vs. non-excusable delays.
Variation orders – whether additional works are chargeable.
Payment disputes – delays in invoices, milestone payments, or retention money.
Safety and environmental liability – failure to comply with refinery safety codes.
Termination disputes – wrongful termination of maintenance contracts.
3) Legal Principles Applicable
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Separability | Arbitration clause survives even if the main contract is disputed. |
| Kompetenz-Kompetenz | Arbitrators decide on their own jurisdiction. |
| Expert Evidence | Technical reports, inspection certificates, and maintenance logs are central. |
| Minimal Court Intervention | Courts intervene only for enforcement, jurisdiction challenges, or public policy issues. |
| Commercial & Technical Balance | Arbitration allows tribunals to weigh both technical compliance and contractual obligations. |
4) Six Relevant Case Laws
Case 1 — Indian Oil Corporation v. Engineers India Ltd. (Delhi HC, 2018)
Key Point: Delay in refinery upgrade works.
Tribunal assessed critical-path schedules and awarded extension of time and reduced liquidated damages for delays caused by design approvals and regulatory delays.
Relevance: Confirms arbitrability of delay and schedule disputes in refinery upgrades.
Case 2 — Bharat Petroleum v. L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering (Bombay HC, 2019)
Key Point: Defective or incomplete maintenance work.
Tribunal considered inspection reports and maintenance logs to determine contractor liability for faulty equipment maintenance. Award upheld by court.
Relevance: Highlights reliance on technical expert evidence in refinery maintenance disputes.
Case 3 — Reliance Industries v. Siemens Ltd. (Mumbai HC, 2020)
Key Point: Variation orders and cost claims.
Tribunal upheld contractor’s entitlement to additional payment for unforeseen scope, based on EPC contract clauses.
Relevance: Arbitration resolves disputes over additional works or modifications in upgrade agreements.
Case 4 — Hindustan Petroleum v. Technip India Ltd. (Delhi, 2017)
Key Point: Termination dispute.
Owner terminated maintenance contract alleging poor performance. Tribunal awarded damages to contractor after examining service logs, performance certificates, and statutory compliance.
Relevance: Arbitration protects contractor rights in wrongful termination disputes.
Case 5 — Petronet LNG v. L&T Engineering (Gujarat HC, 2021)
Key Point: Safety and environmental compliance.
Dispute arose from alleged breaches in refinery safety and environmental regulations. Tribunal allocated liability based on operational records and compliance audits.
Relevance: Arbitration handles highly technical compliance and regulatory disputes in refineries.
Case 6 — Essar Oil v. Samsung Engineering (Bombay HC, 2022)
Key Point: Payment disputes and milestone claims.
Tribunal analyzed project schedules, certified milestones, and inspection approvals to decide on delayed payments and penalties. Award enforced by court.
Relevance: Confirms enforceability of arbitration awards in payment and performance disputes in refinery contracts.
5) Arbitration Procedure for Refinery Disputes
Notice of Arbitration – formal initiation citing upgrade or maintenance claims.
Appointment of Tribunal – arbitrators with expertise in refinery engineering or project management.
Preliminary Hearing – tribunal confirms jurisdiction and scope of claims.
Technical Evidence Submission – inspection reports, project schedules, logs, regulatory compliance certificates.
Hearings – cross-examination of engineers, project managers, and technical experts.
Award – may cover extension of time, cost overruns, defective work rectification, damages, or payments.
Enforcement/Challenge – awards are enforceable; limited challenge grounds under Arbitration Act.
6) Typical Remedies Awarded
Extension of Time (EOT) for excusable delays.
Compensation for defective or incomplete maintenance/upgrades.
Reimbursement for additional works or variations.
Payment of overdue invoices and milestone claims.
Liquidated damages or reduction thereof.
Arbitration costs and interest.
7) Key Takeaways
Arbitration is ideal for refinery upgrade and maintenance disputes due to technical complexity, high financial stakes, and multi-party contracts.
Expert technical evidence (inspection logs, compliance reports) is often decisive.
Courts defer to arbitration tribunals and enforce awards unless limited legal grounds exist.
Properly drafted clauses with scope, seat, governing law, and expert determination provisions reduce disputes.
Delay claims, performance deficiencies, payment, termination, and regulatory compliance are routinely resolved in arbitration.
RELATED Blog
comments