Delhi High Court - Orders
Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power ... vs Vedanta Limited on 23 November, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 225/2018 & EX.APPL.(OS) 553/2019
(refund of excess amount), EX.APPL.(OS) 2944/2022 (refund of
excess amount), I.A. 6421/2019 (directions).
SHENZHEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR POWER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ranjit Prakash, Mr. Anshuman
Pande, Ms. Vishalakshi Singh,
Mr. Ishan Das, Mr. Rakesh
Talukdar, Mr. S.P. Mukherjee,
Advocates.
versus
VEDANTA LIMITED ..... Judgement Debtor
Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai,
Ms. Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet
Wadhwa, Advocates
[8527972970].
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 23.11.2022
1. Further to the order dated 02.08.2022, the parties have attempted to reconcile their accounts. However, there remains a dispute as to the date upon which interest would stop running on the award under enforcement.
2. It is the contention of the judgment debtor that interest would stop running on 23.03.2018, when it deposited a sum of ₹152.22 crores in this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 225/2018 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:24.11.2022 17:49:37 Court pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of the same day in FAO(OS)(COMM) 35/2018. The judgment debtor's alternative submission is that the interest would stop running on 30.08.2018, when the Division Bench dismissed the aforesaid appeal.
3. The decree holder asserts to the contrary and states that interest continues to accrue until realisation, or until compliance of Order XXI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In this regard, Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned Senior Counsel for the decree holder, relies upon a Division Bench decision in Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhai Sardar Singh & Sons [(2009) 109 DRJ 384] to submit that interest continues to run until the decree holder has unconditional use of the amount awarded. This legal position is disputed by Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the judgment debtor.
4. Be that as it may, Mr. Mehta does not dispute that the decree holder is entitled to a sum of ₹184.13 crores under the award i.e., interest calculated until 23.03.2018, after adjustment of the sums already withdrawn by the decree holder pursuant to the orders passed in the present enforcement proceedings.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the parties are also ad idem that the decree holder was secured by a bank guarantee of ₹187 crores pursuant to directions passed by the Bombay High Court in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In addition, there remains a deposit in this Court, being the balance of the amount deposited by the judgment debtor on 23.03.2018, which is likely to be in the region of ₹70-75 crores.
6. As there is an admitted amount of ₹184.13 which is due to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 225/2018 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:24.11.2022 17:49:37 decree holder, for the present, the following directions are passed pending adjudication of the dispute outlined above:-
A. The judgment debtor will remit the aforesaid sum of ₹184.13 crores by a cheque in favour of the decree holder. The cheque will be handed over by learned counsel on record for the judgment debtor to learned counsel on record for the decree holder. B. At the same time, learned counsel for the decree holder will hand over the original bank guarantee furnished by the judgment debtor pursuant to the order of the Bombay High Court to learned counsel for the judgment debtor, as the security will no longer be required. C. Learned counsel for the parties will coordinate amongst themselves to ensure that directions (A) and (B) above are complied with as expeditiously as possible, and no later than two weeks from today. D. The difference between the amount claimed by the decree holder and the amount computed by the judgment debtor is approximately ₹26 crores. After learned counsel for both parties certify compliance with directions (A) & (B) above, the Registry is directed to return the excess amount deposited by the judgment debtor in FAO(OS)(COMM) 35/2018 to the judgment debtor. It is made clear that an amount of ₹26 crores will be retained, and the balance will be released to the judgment debtor. The aforesaid amount of ₹26 crores will be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit. The return of the excess amount by the Registry is also subject to an undertaking by the judgment debtor that, in the event the decree holder is ultimately found to be entitled to more than the aforesaid sum of ₹26 crores, the same will be paid by the judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 225/2018 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:24.11.2022 17:49:37 debtor forthwith.
7. List before the learned Registrar General for compliance on 14.12.2022.
8. List before the Court on 27.02.2023.
PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 23, 2022 'Bhupi'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 225/2018 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:24.11.2022 17:49:37