Case: Renusagar Power Company Limited Vs. General Electric Company

20, 1990 and a further amount of Rs 1, 00, 00, 000 was deposited by Renusagar in pursuance to the order dated November 6, 1990 on December 3, 1990. These amounts have been withdrawn by General Electric. The question is how and at what rate the said amount should be adjusted against the decretal amount. It is not disputed that on the date when the said deposits were made by Renusagar and were withdrawn by General Electric, rupee- dollar exchange rate was Rs 17 per dollar. Shri Shanti Bhushan has, however, submitted that although General Electric had withdrawn the amount deposited by Renusagar, it was not able to use the same because the Reserve Bank of India did not grant the permission to General Electric to remit the amount by converting the same into U.S. dollars on account of the pendency of these appeals in this Court. In this regard, Shri Sh anti Bhushan has placed before us copies of the letters dated April 30, 1990, June 25, 1990, September 10, 1990 and November 29, 1990 of the Reserve Bank of India. On the basis of the said letters, Shri Shanti Bhushan has submitted that out of a sum of Rs 10.69 crores which was received by General Electric it was permitted by the Reserve Bank of India to utilise only Rs 3.52 crores for meeting administrative and operational expenses of the Liaison Office of General Electric and th e rest of the amount would be converted only after the decision in these appeals. Shri Shanti Bhushan has, therefore, submitted that the amounts deposited by Renusagar should be converted from Indian rupees into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate prevalent on the date of the judgment of this Court and not on the basis of the rate of exchange prevalent at the time of the said payments by Renusagar. We are unable to agree with this submission. The convertibility into U.S. dollars of money paid by Renusagar in Indian rupees is not the condition for discharge of the decree and as laid down in Forasol case the decree can be discharged by payment in Indian rupees and it is for General Electric to obtain the necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India for such conversion of Indian rupees to U.S. dollars and the transfer thereof to the United States. If General Electric were finding a difficulty in such transfer on account of the pendency of these appeals in this Court they could have moved this Court and obtained necessary clarification in this regard. They did not choose to do so. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs 10, 69, 26, 590 which has been paid by Renusagar in pursuance to the orders date d February 21, 1990 and November 6, 1990 has to be converted into U.S. dollars on the basis of the rupee-dollar exchange rate of Rs 17.00 per dollar prevalent at the time of such payment and calculated on that basis the said amount comes to US $ 6, 289, 800.00. 142. The judgment of the High Court passing a decree in terms of the award is, therefore, affirmed. This would cover the amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in U.S. dollars and interest on amounts awarded under item Nos. 1, 3 and 5 for the period from April 1, 1986 to October 15, 1986, the date of filing of the petition by General Electric for enforcement of the award in the Bombay High Court. The amount paid by Renusagar during the pendency of these appeals wil l have to be adjusted against the said decretal amount and the present liability of Renusagar under this decision has to be determined accordingly. Calculating on this basis the amount payable by Renusagar under the decree in terms of U.S. dollars is: Amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal: 12, 215, 622.14 Interest on US $ 2, 716, 914.72 (the total amount awarded under item Nos. 1, 3 and 5) @ 8% per annum from 1-4-1986 to 15-10-1986 in terms of theaward 117, 733.00 ------------ 12, 333, 355.14 Less: Amount paid by Renusagar in pursuance of the orders dated 21-2-1990 and 6-11-1990 during the pendency of the appeals in this Court 6, 289, 800.00 ------------- 6, 043, 555.14 143.In accordance with the decision in Forasol case the said amount has to be converted into Indian rupees on the basis of the rupee-dollar exchange rate prevailing at the time of this judgment. As per information supplied by the Reserve Bank of India, the Rupee-Dollar Exchange (Selling) Rate as on October 6, 1993 was Rs 31.53 per dollar. 144.At this stage it may be mentioned that after the arguments were concluded and the judgment had been reserved, an application [I.A. No. 9 of 1993 in C.A. Nos. 71 and 71-A of 1990] was filed on behalf of Hindalco Industries Ltd. for amendment of the cause title to substitute the applicant as appellant in C.A. No. 71 of 1990 in place of Renusagar. The said application has been moved on the ground that after the filing of the said appeal the Bombay High Court, by its order dated April 22, 1993, has sanctioned a scheme of amalgamation of Renusagar with Hindalco Industries Ltd. and the said scheme has also been sanctioned by the Allahabad High Court by its order dated March 26, 1993. A true copy of the said scheme of amalgamation has been filed along with the said application. In clause (i) of para 4 of the scheme, it is stated: "(i) If any suit, appeal or other proceedings of whatever nature (hereinafter called the proceedings) by or against the Transferor Company be pending, the same shall not be abate, be discontinued or be in any way prejudicially affected by reason of the transfer or the undertaking of the Transferor Company or of anything contained in this Scheme but the said proceedings may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the Transferor Company as if this Scheme had not been made." *

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]37. In our opinion, therefore, in proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act, 1961, the scope of enquiry before the court in which award is sought to be enforced is limited to grounds mentioned in Section 7 of the Act and does not enable a party to the said proceedings to impeach the award on merits.II. Bar to the enforcement of the award under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act 38. As indicated earlier, the grievance of Renusagar is that the Arbitral Tribunal on October 1, 1985 decided the preliminary objection raised byRenusagar that the Arbitrators had become functus officio and were not entitled to proceed with the arbitration proceedings on merits and that the Arbitral Tribunal thereafter proceeded to deal with the merits of the claim of General Electric without any further notice to Renusagar and as a result Renusagar was unable to present its case before the Arbitral Tribunal. This objection was not raised by Renusagar either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court. We have, however, considered the same and we do not find any substance in it. After the Terms of Reference had been drawn before t he Arbitral Tribunal on February 8, 1984, the parties had appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal at Paris for hearing which lasted for ten days between February 25 to March 8, 1985 and during the course of the said hearing Renusagar presented typed submissions and legal authorities before the Arbitral Tribunal. In these hearings, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded hearing on issues 22(g) to (p) and the matter was thereafter adjourned by the Arbitral Tribunal to June 10 but on account of sudden illness of Dr Dixit, one of the arbitrators, the matter had to be adjourned and it was ultimately fixed for October 1, 1985. On June 26, 1988, the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal sent a notice to the parties wherein it was stated t hat the adjourned hearing would take place in London on Tuesday from October 1 to 4 and to continue if necessary during the following week from October 7 to 11From these documents, it would appear that the stand of Renusagar was that the Arbitrators had become functus officio and they could not proceed with the arbitration and there was, therefore, no question of Renusagar appearing before the Arbitral Tribunal on the dates fixed for hearing. In these circumstances, it is not open to Renusagar to say that the Arbitral Tribunal, after having rejected, (by majority) the said objection raised by Renusagar, by order dated October 1, 1985 should have given a further notice to Renusagar asking them t o appear to make their submission before the Arbitral Tribunal on the merits on issues 22(q) to 22(bb).In this context, it may also be stated that issues 22(q) and 22(r) relate to the claim of US $ 119, 053.91 for purchase price of spare parts which is not disputed by Renusagar and issue 22(s) relates to claim for compensatory damages on the said amount which has been allowed on the same basis as the claim for compensatory damages on regular interest (Item No2) under issue 22(k). Rest of the matters covered by issues 22(t) to 22(bb) related tos of Renusagar and claims by General Electric againsts which have been disallowed by the Arbitral Tribunal40. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the enforcement of the arbitral award is not barred by Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act on the ground that Renusagar was unable to present its case before the Arbitral TribunalWe find it difficult to accept this contention. It cannot be held that by not using the words "public policy of India" and only using the words "public policy" in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act, Parliament intended to deviate from the provisions of the New York Convention contained in Article V(2)(b) which uses the words "public policy of that country" implying public policy of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought.That Parliament did not intend to deviate from the terms of the New York Convention is borne out by the amendment which was introduced in the Act by Act 47 of 1973 after the decision of t his Court in Tractoroexport case5 whereby Section 3 was substituted to bring it in accord with the provisions of the New York Convention. The Foreign Awards Act has been enacted to give effect to the New York Convention which seeks to remedy the defects in the Geneva Convention of 1927 that hampered the speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration. The Foreign Awards Act is, therefore, intended to reduce the time taken in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The New York Convention seeks to achieve this objective by dispensing with the requirement of the leave to enforce the award by the courts where the award is made and thereby avoid the problem of "double exequatue. It also restricts t he scope of enquiry before the court enforcing the award by eliminating the requirement that the award should not be contrary to the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon. Enlarging the field of enquiry to include public policy of the courts whose law governs the contract or of the country of place of arbitration, would run counter to the expressed intent of the legislation45. We are, therefore, of the view that the words "public policy" used in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act refer to the public policy of India and the recognition and enforcement of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to the public policy of the State of New York63.In view of the absence of a workable definition of "international public policy" we find it difficult to construe the expression "public policy" in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention to mean international public policy. In our opinion the said expression must be construed to mean the doctrine of public policy as applied by the courts in which the foreign award is sought to be enforced. Consequently, the expression public policy in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act means the doctrine of public policy as applied by the courts in India. This raises the question whether the narrower concept of public policy as applicable in the field of public international law should be applied or the wider concept of public policy as applicable in the field of municipal l aw. 64. Keeping in view the object underlying the enactment of the Foreign Awards Act, this Court has also favoured a liberal construction of the provisions of the said Act. In Renusagar case I1 it has been observed: (SCC p. 723, para"It is obvious that since the Act is calculated and designed to subserve the cause of facilitating international trade and promotion thereof by providing for speedy settlement of disputes arising in such trade through arbitration, any expression or phrase occurring therein should receive, consisting with its literal and grammatical sense, a liberal construction." *65. This would imply that the defence of public policy which is permissible under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) should be construed narrowly. In this context, it would also be of relevance to mention that under Article I(e) of the Geneva Convention Act of 1927, it is permissible to raise objection to the enforcement of arbitral award on the ground that the recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to the public policy or to the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon. To the same effect is the provision in Section 7(1) of the Protocol &Convention Act of 1837 which requires that the enforcement of the foreign award must not be contrary to the public policy or the law of India. Since the expression "public policy" covers the field not covered by the words "and the law of India" which follow the said expression, contravention of law alone will not attract the bar of public policy and something more than contravention of law is required66. Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention of 1958 and Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act do not postulate refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign award on the ground that it is contrary to the law of the country of enforcement and the ground of challenge is confined to the recognition and enforcement being contrary to the public policy of the country in which the award is set to be enforced. There is nothing to indicate that the expression "public policy" in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act is not used in the same sense in which it was used in Article 1(c) of the Geneva Convention of 1927 and Section 7(1) of the Protocol and Convention Act of 1937. This would mean that "public policy" in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) has been used in a narrower sense and in order to attract to bar of public policy the enforcement of the award must invoke something more than the violation of the law of India. Since the Foreign Awards Act is concerned with recognition and enforcement of foreign awards which are governed by the principles of private international law, the expression "public policy" in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act must necessarily be construed in the sense the doctrine of public policy is applied in the field of private international law. Applying the said criteria it must be held that the enforcement of a foreign award would be refused on the ground that it is contrary to public policy if such enforcement would be contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality.V. Is the award contrary to public policy of India? 67. Having examined the scope of public policy under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act, we will now proceed to consider the various grounds on the basis of which the said provision is invoked by Renusagar to bar the enforcement for the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. As indicated earlier, Renusagar has invoked the said provision on the ground that enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy for the reason that such enforcement73. Our attention has also been invited to a decision of the Supreme Court of Austria dated May 11, 1983 which is extracted, in brief, in Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration, Volume X (1985) pp.. In that case, an award had been made in favour of the appellant who was a national of Holland against the respondent who was an Austrian whereby the respondent was directed to pay to the appellant DM 667, 500. The appellant sought enforcement of the award in Austria and the said enforcement was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the underlying contracts, though nominally delivery contracts, were in reality sales and purchases on a margin basis and such contracts are contrary to Austrian foreign exchange law, unless specific authorisation therefor was given by the competent authorities. The respondent invoked Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, 1958 to oppose the recognition and enforcement of the award75. As laid down by this Court, FERA is a statute enacted for the "national economic interest" and the object of various provisions in the said Act is to ensure that the nation does not lose foreign exchange which is very much essential for the economic survival of the nation. (See: LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. 23 and M.G. Wagh v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. 24)76. Keeping in view the aforesaid objects underlying FERA and the principles governing enforcement of exchange control laws followed in other countries, we are of the view that the provisions contained in FERA have been enacted to safeguard the economic interests of India and any violation of the said provisions would be contrary to the public policy of India as envisaged in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The submissions urged by Shri Venugopal to show that there has been a violation of the provisions of FERA, therefore, need examination. Shri Venugopal has ma de ad submission in this regard. In the first place, he has urged that in awarding delinquent interest, under item No. 3 the Arbitral Tribunal has acted in disregard of the provisions of FERA and secondly the enforcement of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal would result in violation of the provisions of FERA. As regards the first submission relating to award of delinquent interest, it may be stated that the said submission involves an attack on the merits of t he award which is impermissible at the stage. of enforcement. We have, however, examined this submission on merits and are of the view that it is without substance. Shri Venugopal has urged that under the original approval of January 2, 1964 by th e Government of India of the terms of the loan by General Electric to Renusagar the total amount of loan was to be repaid in 16 equall instalments between the 30th and the 120th month from the effective date of the contract with specific provision for interest from the 16th to the 30th month to be capitalised and the interest was specifically restricted to the period from the 16th to the 30th month and thereafter on capitalisation from the 30th month to the 120th month and that no interest was payable without FERA sanction after the due date of each instalmentThis contention is no longer open to Renusagar in view of the earlier decision of this Court in Renusagar Case 11, wherein this Court has considered the question whether there was an obligation to pay further interest after June 30, 1967 till payment under the contract79. From the observations aforementioned in Renusagar Case II it is apparent that the original contract postulates payment of interest till payment and the effect of the order of the Government of India dated August 1, 1969 was that the original schedule of payment remained operative. Since the original contract had been approved by the Government of India it cannot be said that the award of interest for delayed payment of instalments involved violation of the provisions of FERAWe are unable to agree. It is true that in that case this Court was considering the question of arbitrability of the disputes but for the purpose of deciding that issue it was necessary to consider whether disputes arose out of or are related to the contract and for that purpose it was necessary to construe the terms of the contract and it cannot, therefore, be said that the said decision does not conclude this aspect of the matter. In this context, it may also be pointed out that after the decision in Renusagar Case I, an application for clarification of the said judgment was moved by Renusagar in this Court wherein clarification was sought in respect of certain paragraphs in the judgment and in the said application no objection was raised with regard to the observations quoted above. Moreover, the said application was dismissed by this Court by order dated October 29, 198881. As regards the second submission of Shri Venugopal that the enforcement of the Arbitral award would constitute violation of Section 9(1) of FERA which imposes prohibition to make any payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India except in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of thisn which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank. The submission is that in view of the earlier order of the Government of India dated August 1, 1969 refusing to approve rescheduling of payments the bar of Section 9 will operate and no order for enforcement of the award can be madeWe do not find any support for this submission from the language of Section 47(3) of FERA wherein the words used are "to recover any sum which, apart from the said provisions and any such term, would be due, whether as debt, damages or otherwise". The words "would be" which precede the word "due" indicate that the quantum of the amount has to be fixed in the legal proceedings and that it need not be a predetermined amount. Moreover in the present case, we are concerned with the proceedings for the enforcement of the award wherein the amount due has already been determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the enforcement of the award would involve violation of any of the provisions of FERA and for that reason it would be contrary to public policy of India so as to render the award unenforceable in view of Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act(b) Disregard of the orders of Delhi High Court 85. It is the fundamental principle of law that orders of courts must be complied with for any action which involves disregard for such orders would adversely affect the administration of justice and would be destructive of the rule of law and would be contrary to public policy. The question, however, is whether the enforcement of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal would involve disregard of any order of a court. The submission of Shri Venugopal is that in the matter o f withholding of payment of regular interest Renusagar were acting in accordance with the interim orders that were passed by Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by Renusagar which remained in operation from 1970 to 1980 and, therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal was in error in awarding compensatory damages for retention by Renusagar of the amount of income tax payable on the regular interest during the period the writ petition was pending in the Delhi High Court and enforcement of the award of compensatory damages on regular interest under item No. 2 is, therefore, contrary to public policy. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Renusagar had filed an application, C.M. No., in C.W. No. 170 of 1970 in the Delhi High Court. Prayer (i) of C.M. No.0 was as under:"Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition for an interim order an injunction restraining the respondent and its officers, servants and agents from taking any steps on proceedings in enforcement furtherance, pursuance or implementation or in any manner giving effect to the said orders both dated September 11, 1969 or from preventing the payment by the petitioner of tax free interest of 6 per cent per annum to IGE in accordance with the approval granted by the respondent Orders dated September 8, 1965 and June 7, 1967 and to grant an exparte order pending notice." *86. On February 24, 1970, the following interim order was passed in C.M. No.: "There shall be interim injunction as prayed for. Mr Kirpal to file his counter by March 24, 1970."87. The matter came before the court after notice on May 18, 1970 on which date the following order was passed:"Mr Ravinder Narain states that he will give security, of the assets of the company to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow for Rs Four lakhs. Let this be done within a month from today. Interim injunction and stay to continue. In default of compliance, as above, petition for stay will stand dismissed." *88. From the prayer contained in C.M.W and the orders dated February 24, 1970 and May 18, 1970 passed on the said application, it would appear that pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the re was an interim injunction restraining the Union of India, the respondent in the said writ petition, and its officers, servants and agents from taking any steps on proceedings in enforcement, furtherance, pursuance or implementation or in any manner giving effect to the said orders dated September 11, 1969 whereby tax exemption had been withdrawn and also restraining from preventing Renusagar from paying tax on interest of 6 per cent per annum to General Electric in accordance with the approval granted under orders dated September 3, 1965 and June 7, 1967. The only condition imposed by the Court was that Renusagar was required to give security for Rs 4, 00, 000 to the satisfaction of Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow within one month. These orders would, therefore, show that on furnishing of the said security Renusagar was free to remit regular interest @ 6 per cent per annum to General Electric as per the approval granted under orders dated September 8, 1965 and June 7, 1967. The said orders of the Delhi High Court did not also prevent Renusagar from depositing in the Government Treasury the income tax payable on the amount of regular interest payable @ 6 1/2 per cent per annum. The said orders instead of preventing Renusagar from remitting the said amount of tax free interest in fact permitted Renusagar to make the said payments to General Electric. It cannot, therefore, be said that in retaining the said amount with itself while the writ petition was pending in the Delhi High Court during the period from 1970 to 1980 Renusagar was acting in accordance with the orders passed by the Delhi High Court and the payment of the said amount by Renusagar to General Electric or depositing in the Government Treasury the income tax on the amount of regular interest payable to General Electric would have amounted to disregard of the said orders. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that in awarding compensatory damages under item No. 2 for wrongfully withholding the amount of regular interest during the period from 1970 onwards the Arbitral Tribunal has penalised Renusagar for not disregarding the orders of the Delhi High Court and the enforcement of the said award would be contrary to public policy of India.(c) Interest on Interest (Compound Interest) 89. This relates to award of compensatory damages under item Nos. 2, 4 and 6. It has been urged that the award of interest on interest (compound interest) is not permissible under the law of New York as well as the law in India and is also contrary to public policy of the State of New York as well as the public policy of India. While construing the provisions of Section 7(1)(b)( ii) of the Foreign Awards Act, we have held that under the said provisions the enforcement of a foreign award can be objected to only on the ground of such enforcement being contrary to public policy of India and that public policy of other countries e.g. country of the law of contract of the courts of the place of arbitration cannot be taken into consideration. For that reason an objection to the enforceability of the award of the Arbitration Tribunal cannot be entertained on the ground it is contrary to the public policy of the State of New York. Wewould, however, examine whether award of interest on interest or compound interest is contrary to public policy of India. Before we refer to the law in India in this regard, we may take note of the law in England to which reference has been made by Shri Venugopal during the course of his submissions. At common law in England the principle that is applied is that laid down in "the reluctant decision" of the House of Lords in London Chatham and Dover Rly. Co. v. South Eastern Rly. Co.28 that in the absence of any agreement or statutory provision for the payment of interest, a court has no power to award interest, simple or compound, by way of damages for the detention (i.e., tile late payment) of a debt. The injustice resulting from this rule has been sought to be removed by legislative intervention. By Section 3 of the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 power was conferred on the court of record to award interest in proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages where the debt remained unpaid until the judgment was given. Section 3 of the 1934 Act was repealed and replaced by SectionA inserted in the Supreme Court Act 1981 by the Administration of Justice Act 1982 and power to award interest was extended to cover a case where the debt is paid late, after Proceedings for its recovery have begun but before they have been concluded. The power to award interest does not extend to a case where a debt is paid later but before any proceeding for its recovery have begun. The rule in Lodon Chatham and Dover Rly V. case 28 has been qualified by the Court of Appeal in Wadsworth v.Ly dall29 to apply only to claims for interest by way of general damages and does not extend to claims for special damages. In the field of Admiralty law simple interest is awarded, as a matter of course, on damages recovered in a damage action . In the area of equity the Chancery Courts, differing from the common law courts, have regularly awarded simple interest is ancillary relief in respect of equitable remedies, such as specific Performance, recession and the taking of an account and t he Chancery Courts gave regularly awarded interest, including not only simple interest but also compound interest, when they thought that justice so demanded, that is to say in cases where money had been obtained and retained by fraud or wher e it had been withheld or misapplied by a trustee or anyone else in a fiduciary position. See: President of India v. La Pintada Cia Navegacion SA 30.)93. We may now examine the law governing award of interest in India. Shri Venugopal has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act, 1978. Section 3 empowers a court to allow interest andn (3) of the said se ction provides exceptions to the main provision. In clause (c) ofn (3) it is laid down that nothing in this section shall empower the court to award interest upon interest. Shri Venugopal has also placed reliance on the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji33 and the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. West Punjab Factories Ltd.34; Union of India v. Watkins Mayor &Co.35; Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram36 and Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India37. The decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. v. Ruttanji Ramji33 is based on London Chatham &Dover Rly. Co. case28 and following the said decision, it has been laid down that "interest for the period prior to the date of the suit may be awarded, if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate, or it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or in the provision of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest". The said decision of the Privy Council has been followed by this Court in Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India37, Union of India v. Rallia Ram36, Union of India v. Watkins Mayor &Co.35 and Union of India v. West Punjab Factories34 and it has been held that in the absence of any agreement, express or implied, or any provision of law, it is not possible to award interest by way of damages. This would show that there is no absolute bar on the award of interest by way of damages and it would be permissible to do so if there is usage or contract, express or implied, or any provision of law to justify the award of such interest. Merely because in Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act, 1978, the court is precluded from awarding interest on interest does not mean that it is not permissible to award such interest under a contract or usage or under the statute. It is common knowledge that provision is made for the payment of compound interest in contracts for loans advanced by banks and financial institutions and the said contracts are enforced by courts. Hence, it cannot be said that award of interest on interest, i.e., compound interest, is against the public policy of India. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that award of interest on interest, i.e., compound interest is contrary to public policy of India and the award in respect of compensatory damages awarded under item Nos . 2, 4 and 6 cannot be enforced under Section7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. (d) Damages on Damages 94. This objection relates to award of compensatory damages under item No. 4. The submission of Shri Venugopal is that since the contract did not provide for payment of interest for the period subsequent to the date of maturity, the delinquent interest that has been awarded under item No. 3 is in the nature of damages and the award of compensatory damages under item No. 4 amounts to award of damages on damages which is impermissible and is contrary to public policy of India. In support of this submission, Shri Venugopal has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Trojan &Co. Ltd. v. Nagappa Chettiar38 wherein interest ha d been allowed on damages and it was contended before this Court that the said interest could not be allowed on damages because it would amount to awarding damages on damages which is opposed to precedent and principle. The Court rejected the said contention and held that interest is allowed by court of equity in the case of money obtained or retained by fraud and in that case, the plaintiff had paid the money to defendants on account of fraudulent practices by the defendants on the plaintiffs95. In the present case, the said decision has no application because the basic postulate of the contention of Shri Venugopal is that the contract did not make any provision for payment of interest for the period subsequent to the date of maturity of the promissory notes. This contention has been considered by us and it has been negatived and in view of the earlier decision of this Court in Renusagar Case 11 we have held that the contract provided for payment of interest for the period subsequent to the date of maturity of the promissory notes till actual payment was made. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the delinquent interest that has been awarded under item No. 3 has been awarded by way of damages and not by way of interest. Once it is held that delinquent interest awarded under item No. 3 is by way of interest then there is no question of damages being awarded on damages and it is, therefore, not necessary to go into the question whether awarding damages on damages is contrary to public policy of IndiaUnjust Enrichment 96. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Romania date( February 16, 1985, which is extracted, in brief, in the Year Book of Commercial Arbitration, Vol. XIV (1989) pp. 689 to 691, Shri Venugopal has submitted that unjust enrichment is contrary to public policy of India and since the enforcement of award of the Arbitral Tribunal would result in unjust enrichment of General Electric it cannot be enforced under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act. This contention of Shri Venugopal has a bearing on the award of delinquent interest under item No. 3, as well as on the award of compensatory damages under item Nos. 2 and 4 and award of costs under item, No. 797. In the case decided by the Romanian Supreme Court, a Lebanese shipowner had agreed by a charter party with the Romanian State enterprise to transport from Costantza (Romania) to Bandar Abbas (Iran) certain goods which had been sold C& to an Iranian buyer. The voyage was interrupted at Tripoli (Lebanon) where the shipowner had its seat. At Tripoli all merchandise disappeared, according to the shipowner because of war, and according to the Romanian enterprise because of a local fraudulent sale. The dispute was referred to arbitration and in the arbitration award, the shipowner was directed to refund to the Romanian enterprise part of the freight it had received as well as the value of the lost goods. The Romanian enterprise sought enforcement of the arbitration award in Romania. The Lebanese shipowner objected to the request on various grounds including the ground that it was not obliged to refund the value of the goods since they had been fully paid for by the Iranian buyer. It was submitted that the enforcement of the award was contrary to Romanian public p olicy since it resulted in unjust enrichment of the Romanian enterprise inasmuch as the said enterprise was allowed to receive for the second time the price of goods which had already been paid by the Iranian buyersRejecting the said objection the Romanian Supreme Court held that the arbitral award showed that the Romanian enterprise meant to obtain repayment of the value of the cargo and the freight on behalf of the Iranian buyer acting as agent or trust and since the Romanian enterprise did not act on its own behalf, although it had no express mandate, the conditions for unjust enrichment were not met in the case at issue and, consequently, the public policy of Romanian international private law had not be en violated. The said decision has proceeded on the basis that unjust enrichment was part of the public policy of Romanian international private law but in that case it was found that there was no violation of the said principle of public policy100. We do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the principle of unjust enrichment is a part of the public policy of India since we are of the opinion that even if it be assumed that unjust enrichment is contrary to public policy of India, Renusa gar cannot succeed because the unjust enrichment must relate to the enforcement of the award and not to its merits in view of the limited scope of enquiry in proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act. The objections raised by Renusagar based on unjust enrichment do not relate to the enforcement of the award because it is not the case of Renusagar that General Electric has already received the amount awarded under the arbitration award and is seeking to obtain enforcement of the award to obtain further payment and would thus be unjustly enriching itself. The objections about unjust enrichment raised by Renusagar go to the merits of the award, that is, with regard to the quantum awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal under item Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7, which is beyond the scope of the objections that can be raised under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act. To hold otherwise would mean that in every case where the arbitrators award an amount which is higher than the amount that should have been awarded, the award would be open to challenge on the ground of unjust enrichment. Such a course is not permissible under the New York Convention and the Foreign Awards Act. We have, however, examined the objections raised by Renusagar relating to unjust enrichment even on merits and we are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under item Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 are so excessive as to result in unjust enrichment of General ElectricThis rule in Gourley case40 will, however, apply only where two conditions are satisfied: ( 1) the money, for the loss of which damages are awarded, would have been Subjected to tax as income; and (2) the damages awarded to the plaintiff are not subject to tax in his hands. (See: Chitty on Contracts, 26th Edn., Vol. I, pp., para 1841. In Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery v Corpn.41 the Court of Appeal had remanded the matter to the District Court to take account of the additional taxes Hanover would have paid for computation of damages, on the view that since onlyx profits can be reinvested or distributed to shareholders, Hanover was damaged only to the extent of thex profits that it failed to receiveThe U.S. Supreme Court reversed the said decision of the Court of Appeal and held that the District Court did not err on the question of computation. The Court observed:"As Hanover points out, since it will be taxed when it recovers damages from United for both the actual and the trebled damages, to diminish the actual damages by the amount of the taxes that it would have paid had it received greater profits in the years it was damaged would be to apply a double deduction for taxation, leaving Hanover with less income than it would have had if United had not injured it." *103. Since General Electric would be liable to pay U.S. tax on the amount of compensatory damages awarded under item Nos. 2 and 4 of the Award, it cannot be said that there would be unjust enrichment by General Electric on account ofn of U.S. tax payable on the amount of regular interest and delinquent interest while assessing compensatory damages under item Nos. 2 and 4104. As regards amount of delinquent interest awarded under item No. 3, it has been submitted that since interest is not payable under the contract in respect of the period subsequent to the date of maturity of the promissory notes, the award of delinquent interest for the said period would result in unjust enrichment. This argument about liability for such interest has already been considered by us and we have found that under the contract interest is payable for the period subsequent to the maturity of the promissory notes till payment. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention about unjust enrichment on this accountWith regard to the award of delinquent interest Linder item No. 3 and compensatory damages on the delinquent interest under item No. 4 it has been contended that in view of the agreement between General Electric and Renusagar for rescheduling of the instalments Renusagar were not required to pay the instalments as per the original schedule and, therefore, Renusagar could not be held liable for interest for delayed payment of the instalments which fall due till August 1, 1969, and they could not also be saddled with compensatory damages fornonpayment ofinstalments that fall due till August 1, 1969 as per the original scheduleWe have dealt with the effect of order of the Government of India dated August 1, 1969, refusing to give its appro val to the proposed arrangement for rescheduling of payment of instalments and we have held that as a result of such refusal the original contract regarding payment of those instalments would revive and Renusagar were required to pay the instalments in accordance with the terms of the said contract and were required to pay interest for delayed payment of those instalments and therefore, it cannot be said that award of delinquent interest for the period during which the matter was pending consideration with the Government of India, would result in unjust enrichment of General Electric. 41 20 L Ed 2d 1231: 392 US 481 (1968)105. As regards item No. 7 relating to costs, the case of Renusagar is that the costs awarded by the arbitrators are excessive and unconscionable and further that the costs incurred in relation to the litigation in India, which has been found inadmissible earlier by the Arbitral Tribunal has been included in the costs of arbitrati on that have been awarded resulting in unjust enrichment of General Electric. We have considered this objection of Renusagar and we do not feel that it can be a ground for refusal of enforcement of award under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act. 106. For the reasons aforesaid, none of the objections raised by Renusagar against the enforcement of the award under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act for the reason that such enforcement is contrary to public policy of India merits acceptanceVI. Relevant date for conversion of the amount awarded front foreign currency to Indian currency 107. In the field of conflict of laws money serves a twofold function, viz., (i) as a means of measurement; and (ii) medium of payment. The currency in which a debt is expressed or a liability to pay damages is calculated is called the " money of account" or "money of contract" or "money of measurement" and the currency in which the said debt or liability is to be discharged is called the " money of payment". The money of account is to be ascertained from the terms of the contract construed in accordance with the proper law of the contract and the money of payment is determined by the law of the country in which such debt or liability is payable i.e. lex loci solutionis. (See: Dicey &Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 11 th Edn., Vol. 2, Rules 209 and 210.)108. Where the money of account and the money of payment are not identical the amount of units of the currency of account owed by the debtor must, by an exchange operation, be translated into the currency in which he is obliged to pay. This is a matter of substance and the rate of exchange for such conversion is determined by the proper law of the contract or the law governing the liability. (See: Dicey &Morris, The Conflict of Laws pp. 1442 and 1453.) By this process the quantum of the monetary obligation is determined. The questions relating to conversion of currency often arise at the stage of discharge of the monetary obligation when the debtor makes the payment in a currency other than the money of payment. Such conversion is to be made on the basis of the exchange rate prevailing on the date of payment at the place of payment. (See: Dicey &Morris, The Conflict of Laws, Rule 210(2) at pp.; Mann: The Legal Aspect of Money, 5th Edn., p. 323.) Conversion of the currency is also necessary in cases where legal proceedings have to be instituted by the creditor. In some legal systems the judgment can be given by the courts in the currency of that country only and, therefore, it becomes necessary to convert the monetary obligation into the currency of that country at the time of institution of the legal proceedings. The exchange for such conversion will depend on the lex fori, i.e., the law of the forum and in many legal systems it is the date the cause of action arose, i.e., the date of breach while in some systems it is the date of judgment. In legal systems where it is permissible to obtain a judgment in foreign currency conversion would be necessary at the stage of enforcement or execution of the judgment. Same problem would arise when a judgment of a foreign court is sought to be enforced. The relevant date for applying the exchange rate for such conversion depends upon the lex for, i.e., the law of the forum because it is a matter relating to the procedure. (See: Che shire &North, Private International Law, 12th Edn., p. 106.) What applies to enforcement of judgments equally applies to enforcement of arbitral awards109. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the money of account as well as the money of payment is the same, namely, U.S. dollar. Here, the question of convertibility from U.S. dollars to Indian rupees arises in the context of enforcement of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal which is in U.S. dollars. We are, therefore, required to examine the position under the Indian law with reference to conversion of foreign currency into Indian currency at the stage of enforcement of a judgment or award in foreign currency110. Prior to 1975, the law in England, was that an English court will not give judgment for the payment of an amount expressed in foreign currency and the amount of any foreign currency had to be converted in sterling on or before the date of judgment and the date for the purpose of such conversion was the date when the cause of action arose. This was the law laid down by the House of Lords in United Railways of Havana &Regla Warehouses Ltd., Re42. This decision was overruled by the House of Lords (by majority) in 1975 in Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd.43 In that case, a Swiss seller had agreed to supply English buyers with goods at a price expressed in the contract in Swiss francs. The goods and invoices were delivered but the price was not paid and bill s of exchange drawn in Switzerland and accepted by the buyers were dishonoured on presentation. The seller brought action in England wherein he claimed the sums due in Swiss francs. Originally he had asked for conversion of Swiss francs into sterling at the breach date in view of the law laid down in United Railways of Havana, Re, case42 but subsequently in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Schorsch Meier G.m.b.Hv. Hennin44 the seller amended his statement of claim so as to claim the amount due to him in Swiss francs as an alternative to claiming judgment in sterling. Bristow, J. gave judgment for the moneys due expressed in sterling, holding that the rule that the English courts could express their judgments only in sterling had not been altered either by Parliament or by any decision of the House of Lords. The Court of Appeal reversed the said decision and, following Schorsch Meier G.m.b.H. v. Hennin44 gave judgment for the seller ordering the buyers to pay the sum due in Swiss francs, or the equivalent in sterling at the time of payment. Affirming the said decision of the Court of Appeal and departing from its earlier decision in the Havana Railways case42 the House of Lords has held that it was legitimate for the House of Lords to depart from the "breach date conversion" rule and recognise that an English court was entitled to give judgment for a sum of money expressed in a foreign currency in the case of obligations of a money character to pay foreign currency arising under a contract, the proper law of which was that of a foreign country and where the money of account and payment is that of that country, or possibly of some other country but not of the United Kingdom. It was further held that the claim had to be specifically for the Tomkinson v. First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Co. foreign currency or its sterling equivalent and the conversion shall be at the date of payment, i.e., the date when the courts authorise enforcement of the judgment in terms of sterling. The said decision was, however, confined in its application to foreign money obligations and the court left open for future discussion the question whether the rule applying to money obligations should apply as regards claims for damages for breach of contract or for tort . In his dissenting opinion, Lord Simon, has reiterated the law laid down in Havana Railways case 42. it may be of interest to note that Lord Wilberforce, who gave the leading speech in Miliangos case 43 had appeared in Havana Railway case 42 bu t failed to persuad the House of Lords to accept his contention. He, however, succeeded 15 years later, in having his views accepted by the House of Lords. Subsequently in Services Europe Atlantique Sud (Seas) of Paris v. Stockholms Rederia ktiebolag Svea of Stockholm45 the House of Lords has extended the rule laid down in Miliangos case 43 to claims for damages for tort and breach of contract. The rule laid down in Miliangos case 43 has been held to be applicable to an action at common law on a foreign judgment (See: Dicey &Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 11 th Edn., Vol. 2, p. 146 1.) In relation to arbitral awards the matter had come up before the Court of Appeal in Jugoslavenska Oceanska Plovidba v. Castle Investment CoInC.46 wherein it was held that an award could be made by the arbitrators in England in terms of U.S. dollar and that the same could be enforced by converting the foreign currency into sterling at the rate prevailing at the date of the award117. In India, the law relating to conversion of foreign currency into Indian currency in the matter of enforcement of judgments or awards is governed by the decision of this Court in Forasol case 4. That case arose out of a contract between Forasol, a foreign company and the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, a Government of India Undertaking. Certain disputes arose between the parties which were referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The said arbitration was governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The award directed certain payments to be made in French francs but did not specify the rate of exchange at which the French francs were to be converted into Indian rupees. Proceedings were initiated ill Delhi High Court for passing a decree in terms of the award an d a question arose as to the exchange rate for conversion of French francs into Indian rupees. This Court examined the question with reference to the following dates:(1) the date when the amount become due and pay able; (2) the date of the commencement of the action; (3) the date of the decree; (4) the date when the court orders execution to issue; and (5) the date when the decretal amount is paid or realised118. The court also pointed out that in a case where a decision has been passed by the court in terms of an award made in a foreign currency a sixth date, namely, the date of award also enters the competition. As there was lack of authority of any Indian court, this Court has considered the decision of English Courts including the Miliangos case43119. The first date, i.e., the date when the amount became due and payable, was not accepted by the Court for the reason that it cannot be said to be just, fair or equitable because in a case where the rate of exchange has gone against the plaintiff, the defendant escapes by paying a lesser sum than what he was bound to and thus is the gainer by his default while in the converse case where the rate of exchange has gone against the defendant, the defendant would be subject to a much greater burden than what he should bear. The Court felt that the same criticism would apply to the second of the dates, namely, the date of the commencement of the action or suit because suits are not often disposed of for an unconscionably long time and if we take into account the time that would be spent in appeals, further appeals, and revision and review applications which may be filed, the longevity of the litigation is doubled, if not tripled, so that none can with any certainty predict even a probable date for its termination. As regards the third date, namely, the date of the decree, the Court observed that a decree crystallizes the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and it is the decree which entities ther to recover the judgment debt through the processes of l aw. Dealing with the objection that the date of tile decree of the trial court is not final decree for there may be appeals or other proceedings against it in superior courts and by the time the matter is finally determined, the rate of exchange prevailing on that date may be nowhere near that which prevailed at the date of the decree of the trial court, it was observed that this difficulty is easily overcome by selecting the date when the action is finally disposed of, in the sense that the decree becomes final and binding between the parties after all remedies against it are exhausted. As regards the fourth date, i.e., the date when the court orders execution to issue, it was felt that execution of a decree is not a simple matter because it involves execution of a money decree and thes property has to be attached and pending attachment a third party, at times set up by the, may prefer a claim to the attached property which will have to be investigated and determined by the executing court and even where no claim is preferred the attached property cannot be brought to sale immediately and certain formalities have to be complied with and even after the sale has taken place, the judgment debtor may further hold up the receipt of the sale proceeds by the decreeholder by raising objection to the conduct of the sale and at times, a fresh auction sale may be have to be held if ther commits default in paying the balance of the purchase price and a considerable time would thus elapse between the date when the court orders execution to issue and the date of the receipt of the sale proceeds by the. It was also pointed out that at times the judgment debt is not recovered in full when the attached property is sold in execution and further application for execution may become necessary and this would lead to an anomalous position for the Court would have to fix the rate o f exchange, which may be different from each application for execution. A further difficulty that was pointed out by the court was that execution can only issue for a sum expressed in Indian currency and it cannot be for a sum which would be determined and fixed by the executing court at the time of granting an execution application. With regard to the fifth date, namely, the date of payment, the Court felt that there were three practical and procedural difficulties namely, payment of court fees, the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of courts and execution. Keeping in view the considerations referred to above, this Court declined to adopt the rule laid down in Miliangos case 43 and held that it would be fair to both the parties to take the date of passing the decree, i.e., the date of judgment. The said date was also held applicable to a case where a decree is made in terms of an award made in a foreign currency123. It appears that both the parties are not satisfied with said view of the Division Bench of the High Court in applying the decision in Forasol case4 to the present caseIt is no doubt true that in the Forasol case4 this Court was dealing with an award governed by Indian Arbitration Act but that does not affect the applicability of the said decision to proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award in Indian courts because the matter of conversion of foreign currency into Indian currency at the stage of enforcement of an award is governed by the same principle irrespective of the fact whether the award is governed by the Indian Arbitration Act or a foreign award governed by the Foreign Awards ActMoreover the position has been made clear by Section 4(1) of the Foreign Awards Ac t which lays down that a foreign award shall subject to the provisions of this Act be enforceable in India as if it were an award made on a matter referred to arbitration in India. The said provision equates a foreign award to an Indian award for the purpose of enforcement with the exception that such enforcement will be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Awards Act. There is nothing in the provisions of the Foreign Awards Act which excludes the applicability of the principles laid down in Forasol case4 with regard to enforcement of foreign awards. In our opinion, therefore, the enforcement of the award in the instant case is governed by the law laid down in Forasol case4We are unable to agree with this submission of Shri Venugopal. The manner in which the court should pass the decree in a case where a foreign award is sought to be enforced is a matter of procedure and not of substance and is governed by lex fori, i.e., the law of the forum. The rule laid down in Miliangos case43 has been described as a rule of procedure. (See: Services Europe Atlantique Sud (Seas) of Paris v. Stockh olms Rederiaktiebolag Svea of Stockholms45 at p. 704; Cheshire &North, Private International Law, 12th Edn., p. 100). For the same reasons, the principles laid down in Forasol case4 must be held to be rule of procedural law and would be applicable to the proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act127. We find that in the said passage which falls in Chapter XI relating to "The Payment of Foreign Money Obligations" the learned author is dealing with the conversion of the money of account to the money of payment and he has not considered the matter of convertibility of the foreign currency at the stage of enforcement of a judgment or awardWe have already indicated that convertibility of the money of account into the money of payment involves determination of the liability and is a matter of substance governed by tile proper laws of contract. This question arises prior to the stage of the judgment or award. Here we are dealing with a case where the award has already been made and is sought to be enforced in India and the question is about the conversion of the foreign currency in which the award has been ma de into Indian currency. This question has been dealt with by Dr F.A. Mann in Chapter XII relating to "The Institution of Legal Proceedings and its effect upon Foreign Money Obligations"133. As regards the submissions of Shri Shanti Bhushan assailing the correctness of the decision in Forasol case4 it may be stated that even Miliangos case43 does not provide for conversion on the basis of the exchange rate prevailing on the date of actual payment and it postulates conversion on the basis of the date when the court authorises enforcement of the judgment. The rule in Miliangos case43 has not been adopted in Section 27 of the Judiciary Act of New York, as amended in 1987 and it provides that a judgment or decree in foreign currency shall be converted into currency of the United States at the rateof exchange prevailing on the date of entry of the judgment or decree. "The Legislatures concern of how this could be effected by a sheriff appears to be the reason for not adopting the date of execution of the judgment in the amended provision. The practical and procedural difficulties pointed out by this Court in Forasol case 4 against adopting the date of payment cannot, therefore, be ignored. As at present advised, we are not satisfied that the decision in Forasol case4 calls for reconsideration. Since this is the only question raised in C.A. No. 3 79/92 filed by General Electric, the said appeal must fail. VIII. Interest pendentelite and future interest138. In the instant case, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded interest by way of compensatory damages in respect of the period prior to the date of reference as well as for the period covered by the arbitral proceedings up to March 31, 1986. In respect of the period subsequent to March 31, 1986, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded interest only on item No. 1 (regular interest), item No. 3 (delinquent interest) and item No. 5 (costs of spare parts) until the payment. No direction with regard to the payment of interest pendente lite, i.e., for the period the proceedings were pending in the Bombay High Court till the date of decree as well as for the period subsequent to the decree, has bee n given either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere with that part of judgment of the High Court and to award interest for the period the proceedings for enforcement of the award were pending in the Bombay High Court and in this CourtWe ought, here, to take notice of the developments in the international monetary exchange system insofar as Indo American currencies are concerned. The effect of these changes in the exchange rates made a landslide change in the size of the financial obligations of Renusagar under the Award. The liability thereunder in terms of Indian rupees virtually became double. It is, however, true that that so far General Electric is concerned, it secures no more than what the Award gave it in terms of U.S. dollars. This judgment assures to General Electric that quantum of U.S. currency. But the area of the discretion of the court is in the interlocutor y. We are, therefore, not inclined to award interest pendentelite, i.e., during the pendency of the proceedings for enforcement of the award in the High Court as well as this Court and we hereby recall the directions contained in the order dated February 21, 1990 as regards payment of interest on the balance of the decretal amount. The award of interest for the period subsequent to the date of passing of the award till the passing of this judgment in these appeals is, therefore, confined to the period till the date of institution of the proceedings for enforcement of the Arbitration Award in the Bombay High Court i.e. up to October 15, 1986140. As regards future interest, we are inclined to take the view that for the period subsequent to the date of this judgment Renusagar should pay interest @ 18 per cent on the decretal amount that remains due after adjusting the sum of Rs 10, 69, 26, 590 paid by Renusagar to General Electric in pursuance to the directions given by this Court on February 21, 1990 and November 6, 1990 till the payment of the said balance amountIX. Adjustment of the sum of Rs 10, 69, 26, 590 deposited by Renusagar against the decretal amount:141. As indicated earlier, in p ursuance to the orders of this Court dated February 21, 1990, Renusagar deposited a sum of Rs 9, 69, 26, 590 on March 20, 1990 and a further amount of Rs 1, 00, 00, 000 was deposited by Renusagar in pursuance to the order dated November 6, 1990 on December 3, 1990. These amounts have been withdrawn by General Electric. The question is how and at what rate the said amount should be adjusted against the decretal amount. It is not disputed that on the date when the said deposits were made by Renusagar and were withdrawn by General Electric, rupeedollar exchange rate was Rs 17 per dollar. Shri Shanti Bhushan has, however, submitted that although General Electric had withdrawn the amount deposited by Renusagar, it was not able to use the same because the Reserve Bank of India did not grant the permission to General Electric to remit the amount by converting the same into U.S. dollars on account of the pendency of these appeals in this Court. In this regard, Shri Sh anti Bhushan has placed before us copies of the letters dated April 30, 1990, June 25, 1990, September 10, 1990 and November 29, 1990 of the Reserve Bank of India. On the basis of the said letters, Shri Shanti Bhushan has submitted that out of a sum of Rs 10.69 crores which was received by General Electric it was permitted by the Reserve Bank of India to utilise only Rs 3.52 crores for meeting administrative and operational expenses of the Liaison Office of General Electric and th e rest of the amount would be converted only after the decision in these appeals. Shri Shanti Bhushan has, therefore, submitted that the amounts deposited by Renusagar should be converted from Indian rupees into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate prevalent on the date of the judgment of this Court and not on the basis of the rate of exchange prevalent at the time of the said payments by Renusagar. We are unable to agree with this submission. The convertibility into U.S. dollars of money paid by Renusagar in Indian rupees is not the condition for discharge of the decree and as laid down in Forasol case the decree can be discharged by payment in Indian rupees and it is for General Electric to obtain the necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India for such conversion of Indian rupees to U.S. dollars and the transfer thereof to the United States. If General Electric were finding a difficulty in such transfer on account of the pendency of these appeals in this Court they could have moved this Court and obtained necessary clarification in this regard. They did not choose to do so. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs 10, 69, 26, 590 which has been paid by Renusagar in pursuance to the orders date d February 21, 1990 and November 6, 1990 has to be converted into U.S. dollars on the basis of ther exchange rate of Rs 17.00 per dollar prevalent at the time of such payment and calculated on that basis the said amount comes to US $ 6, 289, 800.00142. The judgment of the High Court passing a decree in terms of the award is, therefore, affirmed. This would cover the amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in U.S. dollars and interest on amounts awarded under item Nos. 1, 3 and 5 for the period from April 1, 1986 to October 15, 1986, the date of filing of the petition by General Electric for enforcement of the award in the Bombay High Court. The amount paid by Renusagar during the pendency of these appeals wil l have to be adjusted against the said decretal amount and the present liability of Renusagar under this decision has to be determined accordingly143.In accordance with the decision in Forasol case the said amount has to be converted into Indian rupees on the basis of ther exchange rate prevailing at the time of this judgment. As per information supplied by the Reserve Bank of India, ther Exchange (Selling) Rate as on October 6, 1993 was Rs 31.53 per dollar144.At this stage it may be mentioned that after the arguments were concluded and the judgment had been reserved, an application [I.A. No. 9 of 1993 in C.A. Nos. 71 andA of 1990] was filed on behalf of Hindalco Industries Ltd. for amendment of the cause title to substitute the applicant as appellant in C.A. No. 71 of 1990 in place of Renusagar. The said application has been moved on the ground that after the filing of the said appeal the Bombay High Court, by its order dated April 22, 1993, has sanctioned a scheme of amalgamation of Renusagar with Hindalco Industries Ltd. and the said scheme has also been sanctioned by the Allahabad High Court by its order dated March 26, 1993. A true copy of the said scheme of amalgamation has been filed along with the said application.