The relevant date for conversion of the decretal amount expressed in foreign currency into Indian Rupees is the date on which the objections to the enforcement of the foreign award are finally rejected.

1. These are applications filed by the Judgment Debtor (‘JD’), Jindal Exports Limited (‘JEL’), seeking certain directions in the execution petitions.

2. The background to these applications is that there were two foreign Awards, one dated 13th August 1996 and the other dated 16th October 1996 in favour of the Decree Holder (‘DH’), Fuerst Day Lawson (FDL), a company incorporated in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) and against the JD.

3. The DH filed Execution Petition No.168 of 1998, seeking enforcement of foreign Award dated 13th August 1996 and Execution Petition No.169 of 1998 seeking enforcement of the foreign Award dated 16th October 1996 in this Court on 31st July 1998. In both the execution petitions, on 4th August 1998, an order was passed by this Court, directing issuance of warrants of attachment against the JD in respect of its properties described in the schedules to the execution petitions.

4. The JD filed OMP No.29 of 2003 in Ex.P. No.168 of 1998 and OMP No.204 of 1998 in Ex.P. No.169 of 1998, challenging the enforceability of both the Awards. Both the OMPs were dismissed by a detailed order dated 11th December 2009. The prayer of the DH for award of interest was declined. The JD was directed to deposit the decretal amount within a period of twelve weeks.

5. Special Leave Petition (SLP) Nos.13626-13629 of 2010 filed by the JD against the order dated 11th December 2009 were dismissed by the Supreme Court by the following order on 30th August 2012:

“SLP(C) Nos.13626-13629 of 2010

Delay condoned.

Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, raised two or three questions of law that we might have felt tempted to examine in some detail. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, specially having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in course of the arbitration proceeding, before the High Court and in presenting the facts of the case to this Court in the synopsis to the special leave petitions, we are totally disinclined to entertain the special leave petition and to consider points raised on behalf of the petitioner. The special leave petitions are dismissed but with no order as to costs.”

6. It may be mentioned that the SLPs by the DH on the question of interest are pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

7. After the dismissal of the SLPs filed by the JD, the DH addressed a letter dated 10th September 2012, calling upon the JD to pay the decretal amount in respect of both the foreign Awards by specifying the exchange rate, as notified by the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’), as on 30th August 2012.

8. Orders were passed by the Court from time to time regarding deposit by the JD of bonds in the execution proceedings for securing the decretal amount.

9. The JD has filed the aforementioned applications thereafter, seeking the following directions:

(i) EA No.790 of 2012 in Ex. P. No.168 of 1998 filed by the JD for a direction to permit it to open the sealed covers and withdraw the old RBI Bonds amounting to Rs. 1.80 crores under Certificate Nos.TBSHC541505163 and TBSHC541505164 and for a further direction that the original RBI Bonds amounting to Rs.1.80 crores under Certificate Nos.TBSHC541506284 and TBSHC541506285 be kept in a sealed cover in the safe custody of the Court.

(ii) EA No.791 of 2012 has been filed by the JD for a direction that the amounts payable by it to the DH under the two foreign Awards should be calculated by making adjustments as per the agreement of the parties as stated in paras 15 to 17 of the said application in the sum of Rs. 2,89,67,369.90 and the Bonds/cash deposit remaining after payment of the amounts to the DH should be released to the JD.

(iii) EA No.789 of 2012 in Ex.P. No.169 of 1998 has been filed by the JD for similar reliefs as prayed for in EA No.791 of 2012 in Ex.P. No.168 of 1998.

10. Mr. Anil Kher, learned senior Counsel for the JD first submitted that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), the Award itself is a de