Holding

An arbitral tribunal's award of interest must be reasonable; a dual rate with a punitive 15% post‑120‑day interest is arbitrary and must be struck down, and interest on foreign‑currency awards should be linked to LIBOR + 3% rather than a uniform rate.

Summary

Vedanta Ltd entered into four EPC contracts with Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd for a 210‑MW co‑generation plant. After termination of the contracts, the Chinese company invoked the arbitration clause and obtained an award granting sums in INR and EUR, with interest at 9% for the first 120 days and a higher rate of 15% thereafter, and a uniform 9% rate on both currency components. Vedanta challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arguing that the dual interest rate was arbitrary, punitive and interfered with its statutory right to contest the award, and that a uniform rate on INR and EUR was inappropriate. The Supreme Court held that the arbitral tribunal must exercise its discretion on interest awards reasonably, that a higher post‑120‑day rate of 15% was unjustified and violative of Section 34(3), and that interest on the EUR component should be linked to LIBOR + 3% rather than a flat 9%. Accordingly, the Court deleted the 15% rate, retained 9% for the INR portion, and ordered LIBOR + 3% for the EUR portion, disposing of the appeal.

Issues considered

The arbitral tribunal's discretion to award interest must be exercised reasonably under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether a dual interest rate structure (9% for 120 days and 15% thereafter) is permissible and does not prejudice the award‑debtor's right to challenge under Section 34(3).
Whether a uniform interest rate can be applied to awards in different currencies (INR and EUR).
Appropriate method of determining interest on foreign‑currency components of an arbitral award.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 31(7), s. 34, s. 37
Interest Act, 1978s. 2

Subjects

ArbitrationInterest awardDual interest rateSection 34Section 31(7)LIBORInternational commercial arbitrationCompensatory interestPunitive interestCurrency differentiation

Judgment

[2018] 12 S.C.R. 829 829

VEDANTA LTD. A
v.
SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR POWER CONSTRUCTION
CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No.10394 of 2018) B
OCTOBER 11, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.34 and 37 –
Appellant and the Respondent-Company entered into four inter-
C
related contracts for construction of a Co-Generation Power Plant
– Dispute arose between the parties – Respondent-Claimant invoked
the Arbitration clause and raised claims in multiple currencies i.e.
Indian Rupee (INR), United States Dollar ($) and European Union
(EUR) – Arbitral Tribunal awarded the amounts in favour of the
Claimant in INR and EUR, but rejected the claim made in $ – Arbitral D
Tribunal awarded interest on the amounts payable in INR and EUR
at the rate of 9% with a condition that if the awarded amounts were
not paid within 120 days, a higher rate of further interest @ 15%
till the date of realization of the amount would be imposed – Propriety
of – Held: Not proper – The adoption of dual rate of interest in
E
award was not justified – The award of a much higher rate of interest
after 120 days was arbitrary, since the Award-debtor was entitled
to challenge the award within a maximum period of 120 days’ as
provided by s.34(3) of the 1996 Act – If the award-debtor was made
liable to pay a higher rate of interest after 120 days, it would
foreclose or seriously affect his statutory right to challenge the F
Award by filing objections u/s.34 of the said Act – Also, imposition
of a high rate of interest @ 15% post-120 days was exorbitant,
from an economic standpoint, and has no co-relation with the
prevailing contemporary international rates of interest – Therefore,
interest rate of 15% granted on the entire sum awarded not justified –
G
Furthermore, a uniform rate of 9% interest for INR and EUR was
not justified, as parties operated in different currency, it was
necessary to take into account the complications caused by
differential interest rates – Thus, a uniform rate of interest @ 9%
would be applicable for the INR component in entirety till the date
of realization, however, interest payable on the EUR component of H
829
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A the Award would be as per LIBOR + 3 percentage points on the
date of award, till the date of realization.
Banks/Banking – LIBOR – Held: LIBOR is an average interest
rate calculated from time to time, based on inputs given by major
banks in London as to their interest rates – Under the LIBOR regime,
B banks give details vis-a-vis actual interest rate that they are paying,
or would be required to pay for borrowing from other banks – LIBOR
is a 3-month rate which has been adopted in some cases of a breach
of contract (or other obligation).
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
C HELD: 1.1 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
D 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
stand-point; (vii) the rates of inflation, (viii) proportionality of the
count awarded as Interest to the principal sums awarded. [Para
E 6] [838-E-G]
1.2 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. Courts may reduce the Interest rate
F awarded by an arbitral tribunal where such Interest rate does not
reflect the prevailing economic conditions or where it is not found
reasonable, or promotes the interests of justice. [Para 6] [838-
G-H; 839-A]
2. In the present case, the arbitral tribunal has adopted a
G dual rate of Interest in the Award. The Award directs payment of
Interest @ 9% for 120 days post award; if the amount awarded is
not paid within 120 days’, the rate of Interest is scaled up to 15%
on the sum awarded. The dual rate of Interest awarded seems to
be unjustified. The award of a much higher rate of Interest after
H
VEDANTA LTD. v. SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR 831
POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

120 days’ is arbitrary, since the Award-debtor is entitled to A
challenge the award within a maximum period of 120 days’ as
provided by Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act. If the award-debtor is
made liable to pay a higher rate of Interest after 120 days, it
would foreclose or seriously affect his statutory right to challenge
the Award by filing objections under Section 34 of the said Act.
B
[Para 8] [839-C-E]
3. The imposition of a high rate of interest @ 15% post-
120 days is exorbitant, from an economic standpoint, and has no
co-relation 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 C
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 120-days.
[Para 9] [839-E-F; 840-A-B]
4. The Award has granted a uniform rate of 9% S.I. on both D
the INR and the EUR component. However, when the parties do
not operate in the same currency, it is necessary to take into
account the complications caused by differential interest rates.
Interest rates differ depending upon the currency. It is necessary
for the arbitral tribunal to co-ordinate the choice of currency with E
the interest rate. A uniform rate of Interest for INR and EUR
would therefore not be justified. The rate of 9% Interest on the
INR component awarded by the arbitral tribunal will remain
undisturbed. However, with respect to the EUR component, the
award-debtor will be liable to pay Interest at the LIBOR rate + 3
percentage points, prevailing on the date of the Award. [Para 12] F
[840-E-G]
IOC v. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. 2007- (4) Arb LR
84 (Delhi) @ Pg. 103; Manalal Prabhudayal v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 296 : [2006]
4 Suppl. SCR 666; FCI v. AM Ahmed AIR 2007 SC 829 : G
[2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 148 – referred to.
Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition 1980 – referred
to.

H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A Gisele Stephens – Chu & Joshua Kelly, Awards of
Interest in International Arbitration: Achieving
Coherence Through Purpose, Indian Journal of Arbitration
Law, Volume 7, Issue 1 (July 2018) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
B 2007- (4) Arb LR 84 (Delhi) referred to Para 6
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 666 referred to Para 6
[2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 148 referred to Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10394
of 2018
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2018 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) (Comm.) 35 of 2018.
Kapil Sibal, Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Advs., Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai,
Ms. Vasudha Sen, Ms. Aayushi Singh, Ms. Divya Roy, Advs. for the
D appellant.
C. S. Vaidyanathan, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Balbir Singh, Sr. Advs.,
Ranjeet Prakash, Anshuman Pande, Ms. Mahima Sareen, Abhinav
Raghuvanshi, Ms. Anannya Ghosh, Advs. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
1. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed to challenge
the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2018 passed by the Delhi
High Court in an Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration &
F Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”].
2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is as
under:
2.1 On 22nd May 2008, the Appellant and the Respondent-Company
entered into four inter-related contracts for the construction of a
G 210-MW Co-Generation Power Plant, viz.: -
i. Offshore Engineering and Technical Services Contract
ii. Offshore Supply Contract
iii. Onshore Services and Construction Contract
iv. Onshore Supply Contract
H
VEDANTA LTD. v. SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR 833
POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

These contracts are hereinafter collectively referred to as A
the ‘EPC Contracts’.
2.2 Each of the four contracts contained an Arbitration Clause which
is identically worded, which reads as under:
“Article 10
ARBITRATION B
10.1 The parties hereto shall endeavor to settle all disputes
and difference relating to and/or arising out of the Contract
amicably.
10.2 In the event of the parties failing to resolve any dispute
amicably the same shall be referred to Arbitration in C
accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996
with all modifications and re-enactments thereto, as is
prevalent in India. Each party shall be entitled to nominate
an Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators so nominated shall
jointly nominate a third presiding Arbitrator. The Arbitrators D
shall give a reasoned award.
10.3 The place of arbitration shall be Mumbai and the
language of the arbitration shall be English.
10.4 The parties further agree that any arbitration award
shall be final and binding upon the parties. E
10.5 The parties hereto agree that the Supplier shall be
obliged to carry out its obligations under the Contract even
in the event a dispute is referred to Arbitration. It is clarified
that the purchaser shall be entitled to retain any sum or
portion of Contract Price which has become due and
payable, for any unfinished works or any subject matter F
under arbitration.”
2.3 The Governing law of the Contracts is the Law of India. The
relevant Clause is set out herein below for ready reference:
“ Article 12 G
GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION
12.1 This contract shall be construed in accordance with
and governed by the laws of India and in the event of any
litigation the courts in India shall be exclusive jurisdiction.”
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A 2.4 The EPC Contracts contained a termination clause which reads
as under :
“35.2.1- The Purchaser may suspend the work in whole or
in part at any time by giving Supplier notice in writing to
such effect stating the nature, the date and the anticipated
B duration of such suspension. On receiving the notice of
suspension, the Supplier shall stop all such work which the
Purchaser has directed to be suspended with immediate effect.
The Supplier shall continue to perform other work in terms
of the Contract which the Purchaser has not suspended. The
Supplier shall resume the suspended work as expeditiously
C as possible after receipt of such withdrawal of suspension
notice.
35.2.2- During suspension, the Supplier shall be entitled to
receive from the Purchaser a Variation Order covering
reasonable costs if any due to suspension and appropriate
D adjustment for Completion Schedule, and other terms and
conditions of this Contract.
35.2.3- If such suspension continues for more than 180 (one
hundred and eighty) days, at the end of the period, the
Supplier shall be by a further 30 (thirty) days prior notice,
E entitled to terminate the Contract and Purchaser shall pay
to the Supplier 105% (one hundred and five percent) of the
cost incurred by the Supplier till the date of termination as
compensation after adjusting payments already made till the
termination. No consequential damages shall be payable by
the Purchaser to the Supplier in the event of such
F suspension.”
(Emphasis supplied)
2.5 The EPC Contracts are entered into between the Petitioner herein
an Indian Company, and a company incorporated in the People’s
Republic of China. The arbitration between these parties is an
G international commercial arbitration, having its seat in India, which
would be governed by Part I of the 1996 Act. The termination
clause provided that in the event of termination, the Purchaser
shall pay 105% of the cost incurred by the Supplier as
compensation. The EPC contracts did not contain any provision
H on payment of Interest.
VEDANTA LTD. v. SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR 835
POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

2.6 Disputes arose between the parties, which resulted in the A
termination of the EPC Contracts by the Respondent vide notice
dated 25.02.2011. The Respondent called upon the Petitioner
herein to pay the outstanding dues as mentioned in the said notice.
2.7 The Respondent-Claimants invoked the Arbitration Clause vide
Notice dated 18.04.2012. The disputes emanating out of the EPC B
contracts were referred to arbitration by a three-member tribunal
in terms of the agreement between the parties. At the first sitting
of the arbitral tribunal on 17.10.2012, the parties mutually agreed
to a change of the seat/place of arbitration from Mumbai to New
Delhi.
C
2.8 The Claimant-Respondent herein raised various Claims in multiple
currencies amounting to Rs. 4,472,106,315; US $ 2,380,000; and
EUR 121,723,214 along with pendent lite and future Interest @
18% p.a.
2.9 The present Appellant filed a Counter Claim amounting to Rs. D
2458,34,89,367 along with Interest @18% p.a. for determination
before the arbitral tribunal.
2.10 The arbitral tribunal passed a detailed Award dated 09.11.2017,
wherein the Tribunal awarded the following amounts:
“134. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, the following amounts E
are awarded in favour of the Claimant and the Respondent
is liable to pay the same to the Claimant within a period of
120 days from the date of this award:
I. Under the First Claim:
a) Rs. 46,71,41,942/- and Euro 23,717,437; and F
b) Rs. 12,19,69,047
II. Under the Second claim:
a) Rs. 25,47,325/-; and
b) Rs. 6,06,707/-
G
c) Rs. 1,31,10,990/-
135. The aforesaid amount shall be payable along with
interest at the rate of 9% from the date of institution of the
present arbitration proceedings provided the amount is paid/
deposited within 120 days of the award.
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A 136. In case the respondent fails to pay the aforesaid
amounts within 120 days from the date of the Award, the
claimant shall be entitled to further interest at the rate of
15% till the date of realization of the amount.
137. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
B case and the expenditure incurred in the arbitration
proceedings, we consider it appropriate to award Rs.
50,00,000.00/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) towards costs and legal
expenses to the claimant, which according to us would meet
the ends of justice. The claim of payment of cost of the
Respondent is rejected.”
C
The arbitral tribunal in the Award granted a part of the First Claim
in INR, while the other component was awarded in EUR. The claim
made in US $ was rejected. 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
D 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% till the date of realization of the amount.
The arbitral tribunal also awarded Rs. 50,00,000 (Fifty Lakhs
E Rupees) towards Costs and Legal Expenses to the Claimant/Respondent
herein.
The arbitral tribunal rejected the Counter-Claims filed by the
Appellant/Award-Debtor.

F 2.11 Aggrieved by the said Award, the present Appellant filed
Objections under Section 34 before the Delhi High Court which
came to be rejected vide Order dt. 12.02.2018.
2.12 Aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge, the Appellant
award-debtor filed an Appeal before a Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court under Section 37 of the said Act. The Division
G
Bench dismissed the Appeal vide Order dt. 30.08.2018.
2.13 Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the Appellant
has preferred the present Special Leave Petition.
At the time of arguments, the Appellant restricted the
H challenge to the rate of Interest awarded by the arbitral tribunal.
VEDANTA LTD. v. SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR 837
POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The challenge on the Interest awarded by the Tribunal is A
being considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, and the specific clauses of the Contracts in question.
3. ‘Interest’ is defined as “the return or compensation for the
use or retention by one person for a sum of money belonging to or owned
by any reason to another”1. In essence, an award of Interest compensates B
a party for its forgone return on investment, or for money withheld without
a justifiable cause.
The current practice of awarding Interest in international commercial
arbitrations is riddled with inconsistencies, and is criticized for lack of
uniformity In internationalcontracts, there is no consensus on the method C
or rate of awarding Interest.
4. In an international commercial arbitration, in the absence of
an agreement between the parties on Interest, the rate of Interest
awarded would be governed by the law of the Seat of arbitration.
The rate of interest awarded must correspond to the currency in D
which the award is given, and must be in conformity with the laws in
force in the lex fori.
5. In the present case, the international commercial arbitration
having its seat in India, the rate of interest to be awarded must be in
accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. E
Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act which provides for Interest, is set
out herein below for ready reference:
“31. Form and content of arbitral award—
(7)…
F
(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and in so
far as an arbitral award is for the payment of money, the
arbitral tribunal may include in the sum for which the award
is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the
whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of
the period between the date on which the cause of action G
arose and the date on which the award is made.
[(b)A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall,
unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate
1
32 HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND para 106 (4th Ed., 1980)
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A of two per cent, higher than the current rate of interest
prevalent on the date of award, from the date of award to
the date of payment.
Explanation – The expression “current rate of interest” shall
have the same meaning as assigned to it under clause (b) of
B section 2 of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978).]
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 31(7) is in two parts: sub-section (a) pertains to the award
of Interest for thepre-reference and pendente lite period, which is subject
to the agreement between the parties. This would be evident from the
C opening words of Section 31(7)(a) – ‘unless otherwise agreed by the
parties’. Absent an agreement between the parties, the arbitral tribunal
has the discretion to award interest; as it deems reasonable. Interest
may be awarded either on the whole, or any part of the sum awarded.
Section 31(7)(b) pertains to the post-award period i.e. from the
D date of the award to the date of realization, and is not subject to party
autonomy or an agreement between the parties. This would be apparent
from the manner in which clause (b) of S. 31(7) is framed. The phrase
“unless otherwise agreed by the parties” is absent from this provision.
The statutory rate of Interest is 2% higher than the current rate of Interest
E prevalent on the date of the award.
6. 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
F 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 stand-
point; (vii) the rates of inflation, (viii) proportionality of the count awarded
as Interest to the principal sums awarded.
G
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.
Courts may reduce the Interest rate awarded by an arbitral tribunal
where such Interest rate does not reflect the prevailing economic
H
VEDANTA LTD. v. SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR 839
POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

conditions2 or where it is nor found reasonable3, or promotes the interests A
of justice4.
7. During the course of hearing, a suggestion was made to apply
Interest in accordance with LIBOR plus a margin (between 1 to 3%).
LIBOR is an average interest rate calculated from time to time,
based on inputs given by major banks in London as to their interest B
rates. Under the LIBOR regime, banks give details vis-a-vis actual
interest rate that they are paying, or would be required to pay for borrowing
from other banks. LIBOR is a 3-month rate which has been adopted in
some cases of a breach of contract (or other obligation)5.
8. In the present case, the arbitral tribunal has adopted a dual C
rate of Interest in the Award. The Award directs payment of Interest @
9% for 120 days post award; if the amount awarded is not paid within
120 days’, the rate of Interest is scaled up to 15% on the sum awarded.
The dual rate of Interest awarded seems to be unjustified. The
award of a much higher rate of Interest after 120 days’ is arbitrary, D
since the Award-debtor is entitled to challenge the award within a
maximum period of 120 days’ as provided by Section 34(3) of the 1996
Act6. If the award-debtor is made liable to pay a higher rate of Interest
after 120 days, it would foreclose or seriously affect his statutory right
to challenge the Award by filing objections under Section 34 of the said E
Act.
9. The imposition of a high rate of interest @ 15% post-120 days
is exorbitant, from an economic standpoint, and has no co-relation with
the prevailing contemporary international rates of Interest. The Award-
F
2
IOC v. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd 2007- (4) Arb LR 84 (Delhi) @ Pg. 103
3
(2009) 17 SCC 296
4
FCI v. AM Ahmed AIR 2007 SC 829
5
Gisele Stephens–Chu & Joshua Kelly, Awards of Interest in International Arbitration:
Achieving Coherence Through Purpose, Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, Volume
7, Issue 1 (July 2018)
6
Section 34 (3) – An application for setting aside may not be made after three G
months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had
received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the
date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided
that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause
from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain
the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A 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 120-
days.
B 10. The Petitioner in his Written Submissions submitted a chart
which shows that the Interest component of the Award amounts to almost
50% of the sum awarded. The grant of 15% Interest is excessive and
contrary to the principle of proportionality and reasonableness.
11. It is also relevant to note that as per Clause 35.2.3 (supra) of
C the Conditions of Contract, it was expressly provided that there would
be no consequential damages payable by the Purchaser to the Supplier
in the event of termination of the contract, as the supplier would get
105% of the costs incurred.
The Claimant/Respondent has, in fact been awarded 105% of the
D costs incurred under the EPC Contracts by the arbitral tribunal.
The award of Interest @ 9% on the Euro component of the Claim
is unjustified and unwarranted. The levy of such a high rate of Interest
on a claim made in a foreign currency, would result in the Claimant
being awarded compensation, contrary to the conditions stipulated in the
E Contract.
12. The Award has granted a uniform rate of 9% S.I. on both the
INR and the EUR component. However, when the parties do not operate
in the same currency, it is necessary to take into account the complications
caused by differential interest rates. Interest rates differ depending upon
F the currency. It is necessary for the arbitral tribunal to co-ordinate the
choice of currency with the interest rate. A uniform rate of Interest for
INR and EUR would therefore not be justified. The rate of 9% Interest
on the INR component awarded by the arbitral tribunal will remain
undisturbed. However, with respect to the EUR component, the award-
debtor will be liable to pay Interest at the LIBOR rate + 3 percentage
G points, prevailing on the date of the Award.
13. In light of the above-mentioned discussion, the Interest
awarded by the arbitral tribunal is modified only to the extent mentioned
hereinbelow :-

H
VEDANTA LTD. v. SHENZEN SHANDONG NUCLEAR 841
POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(i) The Interest rate of 15% post 120 days granted on the entire A
sum awarded stands deleted.
A uniform rate of Interest @ 9% will be applicable for the
INR component in entirety till the date of realization.
(ii) The Interest payable on the EUR component of the Award will
be as per LIBOR + 3 percentage points on the date of Award, B
till the date of realization.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H