Quick Summary: M3nergy argued against an arbitration decision, saying there was no contract because a Joint Executing Agreement (JEA) wasn't signed. The court agreed with the arbitration decision, saying the JEA was still good even without signatures.
M3nergy SDN. BHD. (M3) filed a case against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and Prize Petroleum Company Ltd. (PPCL). M3 was against a decision that said a Joint Executing Agreement (JEA) was valid, even though it wasn't officially signed.
M3 said the JEA wasn't valid because it wasn't signed. But during meetings in April 2007, everyone agreed on the JEA's terms. M3 later refused to sign, leading to arguments about who would manage the project.
"M3 can accept that PPCL is chosen as the Executing Contractor," M3 stated, but disagreements continued.
The court found that even without official signatures, the JEA was valid. Everyone had agreed on its terms, and M3's actions seemed like they were trying to change an already agreed-upon contract. The court said the arbitration agreement was valid on its own.
The court said M3 was responsible for the project's failure because they held up the JEA's signing, causing ONGC to end the service contract. M3 was found responsible to pay HPCL and PPCL, with the amount to be decided later.
The court rejected M3's case, supporting the arbitration decision. M3 was ordered to pay costs to HPCL and PPCL, showing how important it is to stick to initial agreements in big business deals.
