Post-award interest is governed by Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, entitling the award holder to statutory interest unless otherwise directed by the arbitrator.

Order :

As all these revision petitions arise out of the same set of facts and common questions arising between the same parties, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. A few facts would be necessary, before going into the questions, which arise in the present set of revision petitions.

a) The petitioner and the respondent had entered into turn-key contracts on 03.03.1992 (hereinafter referred to as '1992 contract') and on 31.03.1995 (hereinafter referred to as '1995 contract'). On account of disputes in these contracts, arbitration was initiated, by the respondent, in both these cases, on 16.10.1998. The arbitration relating to the 1992 contract ended in an Arbitral Award, dated 20.04.2001, passed in favour of the respondent. The arbitration relating to the 1995 contract resulted in an Arbitral Award, dated 24.10.2001 passed in favour of the respondent.

b) Aggrieved by these awards, the petitioner herein filed O.P.No.989 of 2001 and O.P.No.96 of 2002, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). O.P.No.989 of 2001 came to be dismissed on 10.10.2002 and O.P.No.96 of 2002 came to be dismissed on 01.11.2002. Aggrieved by these orders of dismissal, the petitioner moved this Court, under Section 37 of the Act, by way of C.M.A.No.255 of 2003 and C.M.A.No.624 of 2003. Both these appeals came to be allowed, on 29.09.2004, and the Awards passed by the Arbitral Tribunal were set aside. Against these orders, the respondent filed C.A.No.3353 of 2005 and C.A.No.3354 of 2005 before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and the same came to be allowed, on 02.07.2015, and the arbitral awards came to be restored.

c) After the completion of these proceedings, the respondent filed E.P.No.45 of 2015 and E.P.No.46 of 2015 for execution of the said awards. These execution petitions came to be dismissed on 11.07.2016 by the Executing Court. Against these orders of dismissal, the respondent filed C.R.P.No.5551 of 2016 and C.R.P.No.5552 of 2016 before this Court, which were allowed on 27.01.2017, restoring the Execution Petitions. S.L.P.No.9931 of 2017 and S.L.P.No.9932 of 2017, preferred by the petitioner, before the Hon‘ble Supreme court, were dismissed on10.04.2017.

d) After the dismissal of these two Special Leave Petitions, arguments were advanced in E.P.Nos.45 and 46 of 2015, for the purpose of obtaining attachment of the deposits, of the petitioner herein, for realization of Rs.78,67,64,928/- in the case of E.P.No.45 of 2015 and an amount of Rs.118,28,00,000/- in the case of E.P.No.46 of 2015.

f) The petitioner herein, contested the attachment of the fixed deposit receipts, on the ground that the calculation Memos showing the aforesaid amounts, are incorrect and that no attachment can be given on the basis of such a calculation. The petitioner assailed the calculations made in both cases on two grounds – (1) The Arbitral Tribunal had only granted interest till the date of Award and no interest had been awarded beyond the date of Award. In the absence of any such Award being made, no interest can be calculated from 20.04.2001 and 24.10.2001 respectively. As such interest had been calculated even after the date of Award, the same would have to be deducted before any orders can be passed; and (2) The award had been passed in terms of US dollars and the respondent had applied the rate of Rs.63.5705 per US dollar by applying the foreign exchange rate applicable as on 02.07.2015, which was the date on which the Hon‘ble Supreme Court had allowed the Special Leave Petitions and restored the Arbitral Award. The petitioner argued that the rate of exchange which should have been applied was Rs.48.34 per US dollar, which was the exchange rate a