Skip to main content

Award-Debtor Cannot Be Subjected To A Penal Rate Of Interest

In Vedanta Ltd. vs Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd., the arbitral tribunal adopted a dual rate of Interest. If the amounts awarded were paid within 120 days’ from the passing of the Award, the awarded sum would carry a 9% rate of Interest on both the components of the Award i.e. the amounts payable in INR and EUR. However, if the awarded amounts were not paid within 120 days’, the arbitral tribunal imposed a higher rate of further Interest @ 15% the date of realization of the amount.

The appeal against the order of the tribunal was rejected by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and the divisional bench as well.

On appeal the Supreme Court decided that the discretion of the arbitrator to award interest must be exercised reasonably. An arbitral tribunal while making an award for Interest must take into consideration a host of factors, such as: 
(i) the ‘loss of use’ of the principal sum; 
(ii) the types of sums to which the Interest must apply; 
(iii) the time period over which interest should be awarded; 
(iv) the internationally prevailing rates of interest; 
(v) whether simple or compound rate of interest is to be applied;
(vi) whether the rate of interest awarded is commercially prudent from an economic stand­point;
(vii) the rates of inflation, 
(viii) proportionality of the count awarded as Interest to the principal sums awarded.

On the one hand, the rate of Interest must be compensatory as it is a form of reparation granted to
the award­ holder; while on the other it must not be punitive, unconscionable or usurious in nature.

The dual rate of Interest awarded seems to be unjustified. The imposition of a high rate of interest @ 15% post-120 days is exorbitant, from an economic standpoint, and has no co­rrelation with the prevailing contemporary international rates of Interest. The Award­ debtor cannot be subjected to a penal rate of interest, either during the period when he is entitled to exercise the statutory right to challenge the Award, before a Court of law, or later. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal has not given any reason for imposing a 15% rate of Interest post 120­days.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more