Centre moves Supreme Court against Vedanta’s $99 million Ravva oilfield award

The Union government is challenging a Delhi High Court order allowing the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards stemming from a long-standing $99 million revenue-sharing dispute over the Krishna-Godavari basin oilfield.

The Union government has approached the Supreme Court, challenging a Delhi High Court order that allowed Vedanta Ltd and Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pvt Ltd to enforce foreign arbitration awards arising from a dispute over the Ravva oilfield, involving claims of $99 million.

According to the Supreme Court’s cause list, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manmohan will hear the Centre’s plea on Monday.

The Centre has challenged the Delhi High Court’s 1 July 2026 judgement that rejected its objections to the enforcement of the awards. The high court also directed that bank guarantees furnished by Vedanta and Ravva Oil be released within eight weeks.

The dispute dates back to 1994, when the government entered into a production-sharing contract (PSC) with a consortium comprising Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Videocon Petroleum, Ravva Oil and Cairn Energy to develop the Ravva oilfield in the Krishna-Godavari basin. Cairn Energy’s interest in the project subsequently passed to Cairn India, which was later merged with Vedanta.

ONGC Carry issue

At the heart of the dispute was how payments made by the companies towards ONGC’s historical costs should be accounted for while calculating the parties’ respective shares of revenue from oil production. The issue came to be known as the ONGC Carry issue.

The PSC provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, under Malaysian law and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules.

In a partial award dated 12 October 2004, the tribunal ruled in favour of the companies on two of six issues and in favour of the government on the remaining four. It left the quantification of the ONGC Carry issue unresolved, retaining jurisdiction to decide the matter if the parties failed to reach an agreement.

The government challenged the partial award before Malaysian courts. Although the Kuala Lumpur High Court initially set it aside in January 2009, the Malaysian Court of Appeal restored it in September that year. The Malaysian Federal Court upheld the award in October 2011.

In July 2014, the government issued show-cause notices seeking $64 million from Vedanta and $35 million from Ravva Oil, and threatened to recover the amounts from proceeds payable to the companies from oil sales. The companies disputed the claim and approached the tribunal to determine the outstanding amount under the ONGC Carry issue.

The tribunal delivered its final award on 26 October 2016. The government challenged the award before Malaysian courts, but its challenge was rejected, with the Malaysian Federal Court upholding the award on 28 February 2019.

High court order

Vedanta and Ravva Oil subsequently approached the Delhi High Court, seeking enforcement in India of the 2004 partial award and the 2016 final award. The Centre opposed the plea, arguing that the awards should not be enforced.

Rejecting the government’s objections, the Delhi High Court held that an enforcement court could not reopen the merits of the dispute or reconsider the tribunal’s findings merely because the government disagreed with them. It dismissed the Centre’s objections and allowed the companies’ plea, directing that their bank guarantees be released within eight weeks.

The Ravva dispute is not the only legal battle involving Vedanta’s oil and gas business. In a separate dispute concerning the CB-OS/2 offshore block in Gujarat’s Cambay Basin, the company is challenging the Centre’s decision not to extend its contract for another 10 years and to hand over operations to ONGC. The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment on Vedanta’s appeal on 1 October 2026.

Mint’s queries to Vedanta and the ministry of petroleum and natural gas remained unanswered at the time of publishing.

About the Author

Krishna Yadav is a Senior Correspondent at Mint, based in New Delhi, and part of the corporate bureau. He joined the newsroom as a trainee in 2023 and quickly grew into his current role. He writes on legal and regulatory developments in corporate India, with a focus on insolvency, taxation, company law, and policy. His reporting includes tracking and breaking key legal stories from the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, NCLT, and NCLAT.<br><br>With a background in law, Krishna is known for simplifying complex legal developments into clear, accessible stories for readers. His work focuses on trends in corporate law and policy that affect businesses. This ranges from explaining tax disputes—like whether coconut hair oil is edible—to writing on why celebrities are seeking personal rights protection. He closely tracks India’s insolvency system, covering issues such as creditor losses, gaps in the process, and challenges in how the framework works in practice.<br><br>Krishna also tracks developments within law firms—covering hiring trends, how firms help companies navigate global challenges, and how the legal industry is adapting to artificial intelligence. Beyond legal reporting, he has written long-form pieces, including on-ground coverage of the 2024 general elections, capturing the scale and logistics of polling across India.<br><br>Outside work, he enjoys travelling, exploring new places, and reading about geopolitics and history.