Vedanta Limited v. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited

11 SCC 465Reported decision2012#1082 most cited

What is Vedanta Limited v. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited authority for?

A dual rate of interest awarded by an arbitral tribunal is arbitrary if the higher rate applies after the period allowed for challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitral tribunals must ensure interest awards comply with Section 31(7) of the Act and avoid uniform rates for different currencies.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vedanta Limited v. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited · Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act · Section 31(7) Arbitration and Conciliation Act · dual rate of interest · arbitrary interest · challenging arbitral award · post-award interest · uniform interest for different currencies · award-debtor rights

Judgments citing Vedanta Limited v. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt Ltd

ITA/114/2023HC Delhi07 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 11(5)Section 16Section 34Section 37(2)(a)

…O.M.P. (COMM) 114/2023 Page 5 of 23 the settled law. In support of this plea, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vedanta Limited v. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited, (2019) 11 SCC 465, wherein the Supreme Court held that the dual rate of interest being @ 9% for 120 days post the award and @ 15% if the amount is not paid within 120 days, was unjustified. It was observed that award of a much higher rate of interest after 120 days is arbitrary, since the award-debtor is entitled to challenge the award within a maximum period…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 Delhi vs. Alchemist Life Sciences Ltd

ITA/23/2022HC Delhi03 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 15Section 16Section 18Section 19Section 34Section 37

…ct notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.‖ 44. Ms Priya had also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vedanta Ltd. v. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd.: (2019 11 SCC 465 and, on the strength of the said decision, contended that the award of interest was required to be awarded in accordance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act and was thus, required to be reduced. The said decision would be of little assistance to IHMCL in the facts of this case. In that case, the Court had found that the award of interest was ar…

B T Kantharaj vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/27680/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Nanjundappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/47827/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Thariq Khan vs. State of Karnataka

WP/8585/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Smt Janaki vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/28215/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Smt. Lakshmamma vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/6960/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Sri Shivalingaiah vs. State of Karnataka

WP/6376/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Sri H K Basavegowda vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/28214/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Smt. Priyadarshini vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/35277/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Moosaveer @ Ibrahim Sab vs. State of Karnataka

WP/13029/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

N Santhosh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/22667/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Sri C Govardhan Reddy vs. State of Karnataka

WP/36459/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Sri Rajanna vs. State of Karnataka

WP/18646/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Smt. Motamma vs. Deputy Commissioner

WP/25219/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

K T Thipperudrappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/50828/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Sri A M Narayanaswamy vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/8210/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Sri M B Devayya vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/18327/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Smt Uma Balagavi vs. State of Karnataka

WP/23800/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…

Mr G Pulla Reddy vs. State of Karnataka

WP/56168/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…E OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1974 SC 555) (2) SRI RAMAKRISHNA DALMIYA vs SRI JUSTICE S.R.TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 SC 538) (3) M.C.MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (4) NUPUR TALWAR vs C.B.I. (2012)11 SCC 465 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011…