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

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more