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
| 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
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 mod....
Award i.e. amounts calculated in EURO are to be paid in INR as per exchange rate prevalent at the time of filing of the claim petition
In enforcement of arbitral awards, the applicable exchange rate for foreign currency amounts is determined by the date the award became final, not the date of demand.
Point of law: It is not necessary that the commercial transactions between Indian parties be confined to Indian territories alone.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'live dispute' and 'admitted liability' in the context of arbitration proceedings, and the court's reliance on relevant provi....
Payment recognized under decree requires unconditional compliance; bank guarantees do not suffice, and interest continues until funds are available to the decree holder.
Future interest on an arbitral award must be calculated on the total sum directed to be paid, including both principal and interest components. Liability for such interest accrues starting from the d....
Setting aside arbitral award – Illegality must go to root of matter and cannot be of a trivial nature.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.