Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, JJ.
Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vedanta Limited – Respondent
EFA(OS) (Comm) 5 of 2020 & CM Appls. 17808-09 of 2020
Decided on : 27-04-2022
Civil Procedural Code, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 58 CPC - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34, 37 - Appeal - Execution appeal under provisions of Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXI Rule 58 CPC has been filed by appellant seeking setting aside of order arbitral award also notes that the amount payable as EURO in terms of the award would be of the value of exchange rate as prevalent on the date of filing of the claim petition. (Para 17,18)
Finding of the Court:
Single Bench of this Court has rightly not interfered in finding returned by arbitral tribunal that amount of EURO would be of value of exchange rate as prevalent on date of filing of claim petition and thereby, rejected claim of appellant/ decree holder that date of conversion should be taken as date of payment - On interest aspect, Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaboratively spelt out as to why rate of interest payable in EURO has been reduced and that Single Bench has rightly taken note of it - In view of above, court hereby make it clear that awarded amount payable by respondent in EURO would be of value of exchange rate as prevalent on date of filing of claim petition with interest at LIBOR rate +3 percentage points prevailing on date of Award, whereas amount payable in INR shall carry flat rate of interest @9% p.a.- Needless to say amount with interest shall be due and payable from date of filing of arbitration proceedings.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
1. The present execution appeal under the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXI Rule 58 CPC has been filed by the appellant seeking setting aside of the order dated 06.01.2020 in OMP (ENF.) (Comm) 225/2018 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has purported to modify the arbitral award dated 09.11.2017 as well as judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10394/2018.
2. The factual background of the present appeal is that appellant and respondent had entered into EPC Contracts on 22.05.2008, however, certain disputes with regard to pending payments and suspension of contracts at the hands of respondent arose and, therefore, on 18.04.2012 appellant invoked arbitration. An arbitral tribunal comprising of Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma & Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Former Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Former Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, was constituted; parties filed their claims and counter claims and the arbitral award dated 09.11.2007 was passed. The said arbitral award was challenged by the respondent in petition [OMP (Comm) 70/2018] under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Against the aforesaid dismissal order dated 12.02.2018, respondent preferred an appeal [FAO (OS) (Comm) 35/2018] under the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and vide order dated 05.03.2018 passed therein, respondent/ judgment debtor was directed to deposit the amount in terms of arbitral award dated 09.11.2017 with interest @9% p.a. Further, respondent filed an application seeking modification of the order dated 05.03.2018 to secure the amount of Rs. 332.22. crores by depositing amount of Rs. 522.22 crores as per order dated 05.02.2018 and continue the bank guarantee of Rs. 187 crores furnished by the respondent in favour of appellant. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2018 directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 152,22,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court, however, the said appeal [FAO (OS) (COMM) 35/2018] was dismissed holding that the interest decided by the arbitral tribunal is not perverse and does not warrant any interference.
3. Thereafter, appellant preferred an execution petition [OMP (ENF) (Comm) 225/2018] seeking enforcement of the arbitral award dated 09.11.2017, wherein this Court vide order dated 24.09.2018 directed the Registry to release amount of Rs. 60 crores deposited by the respondent [in FAO (OS) (Comm) 35/2018] in favour of the appellant. The respondent preferred Special Leave Petition [SLP (C) No. 25819/2018] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.10.2018 modified the arbitral award to the extent that interest on the EURO element will be based upon London Interbank Offered Rate as on the date of the arbitral award i.e. 09.11.2017 and set aside the future rate of interest @15% applicable after 120 days of the award. Consequently, directed flat rate of interest @9% p.a. applicable from the date of award till realization upon the rupee value of the award.
4. In pursuance of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated 11.10.2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court in execution proceedings after taking into account respective calculations and written submission of the parties, passed the final decision dated 06.01.2020 and directed the Registry to release Rs. 34,69,20,245/- in favour of the appellant.
5. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 06.01.2020 in OMP (ENF) (Comm) 225/2018, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Single Bench has purportedly modified the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10394/2018.
6. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for appellant submitted that vide order and judgment dated 11.01.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has modified the i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
