SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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




The court confirmed that an arbitral award requires strict adherence to interest rates and currency components as specified in the original award and Supreme Court orders, preventing unauthorized modifications by execution courts.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Enforcement of arbitral award - Appellant challenged modification of arbitral award by Single Judge, claiming it altered Supreme Court judgment dated 11.10.2018 regarding interest and currency components - Court affirmed that the awarded amount in EURO must follow exchange rate as of claim petition filing date. (Paras 1, 5, 12, 20)

(B) Arbitration - Interest Rate - The court confirmed that differing interest rates for EURO and INR components were justified due to currency complexities per the arbitration process and agreed judgments. (Paras 19, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant and respondent were bound by EPC contracts, with disputes leading to arbitration and an award dated 09.11.2017, which was later challenged and partially modified by the Supreme Court regarding interest rates. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The execution proceedings concluded with the decree holder entitled to specific amounts according to the arbitral award and interest rates set based on currency components, affirming the need for precise adherence to exchange rate standards. (Paras 6, 20, 22)

Issues: The court addressed whether the Single Judge modified the Supreme Court's order on interest and currency payments and whether the conversion of EURO into INR at payment should apply. (Paras 5, 6, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the modification of interest rates by the Supreme Court did not equate to altering the payment structure concerning currency, reinforcing the arbitral tribunal's findings remain untouched. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Appeal dismissed and order maintained.

Table of Content
1. execution appeal context and history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding illegal modification of arbitral award. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. respondent’s defense against appellant's claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. overview of judicial consideration of prior orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. clarification on currency conversion and interests. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. final direction on payment terms. (Para 22)
7. final disposition of the appeal. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. 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 re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top