Summary: The Bombay High Court decided against M3nergy SDN. BHD., finding it responsible for breaking an agreement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and Prize Petroleum Company Ltd. (PPCL). The court supported a previous decision that blamed M3nergy for project failures, which led to the agreement's end by ONGC.
M3nergy SDN. BHD., previously known as Trenergy/M3nergy Berhad, challenged a decision from an arbitration process that said a Joint Executing Agreement (JEA) was valid, even though it wasn't officially signed. The disagreement involved a project given by ONGC, where M3nergy, HPCL, and PPCL worked together as a team.
The main argument was whether the JEA was a real agreement. M3nergy said it wasn't, because it wasn't signed. However, the court found that everyone had agreed to the JEA's terms during meetings in April 2007, and M3nergy's refusal to sign didn't cancel the agreement.
"The parties met between April 16, 2007, and April 18, 2007, and initialed a draft of the JEA," the court noted, showing that the agreement was basically in place.
The court, led by Judge Somasekhar Sundaresan, looked over the arbitration group's decision and found it reasonable. The group said that M3nergy was responsible for delays and failures, including not finishing the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and complaining about the FEED sub-contract.
The court agreed with the group that M3nergy's actions led to the ending of the Service Agreement by ONGC. M3nergy's repeated refusal to finish agreements and its demands for changes were seen as attempts to change already settled terms.
"M3 signing the 2008 JEA, its own version... was a bold and aggressive attempt to force HPCL," the court stated, showing M3nergy's actions were not justified.
The court dismissed M3nergy's request and ordered it to pay costs of Rs. 14 lakhs to HPCL and PPCL. The ruling emphasized that business agreements require parties to act honestly and follow agreed terms, even if formal signatures are missing.
