The date of final dismissal or decision governs the rate of exchange for execution of the decree. The Decree Holder is entitled to receive the sum only when finality attaches to the award.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

The present petition seeks execution of award dated 25th November, 2014 passed under the aegis of Indian Council of Arbitration. The relevant portion of the said award is as under:-

"63. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal hereby makes issues and publishes this Final Award as follows:

a. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of US$ 3,465,000 with interest thereon computed at the rate of 12% per annum from 4th of January 2012 up to the date of this Award. From the day after the date of this Award up to the date of payment interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum;

b. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of US$ 8,252.50 with interest thereon computed at the rate of 12% per annum from 4th January 2012 up to the date of this Award. From the day after the date of this Award up to the date of payment interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum;

c. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of USD 103,146.58 being legal costs.

d. The Respondent shall pay the fees and expenses of the Tribunal as follows:

i. The Tribunal's travel costs and expenses of the sum of USD 11,801.84;

ii. The Tribunal's fees amounting to the total of Indian Rupees 4,473,000.

Where any such fees and expenses have been paid by the Claimant, the Respondent shall fully reimburse the Claimant for the same.

e. The Respondent shall pay to the ICA the sum of Indian Rupees USD 1,157,000 towards the administrative fees of the ICA. Where any such fees have been paid by the Claimant, the Respondent shall fully reimburse the Claimant for the same.

f. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum USD 51,999.84 towards payment of Lloyd Michaux's costs and Claimant's witnesses and representatives travel expenses costs;

g. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of Indian Rupees 526,276 towards Claimant's expense for hotel and local travel;

h. The Respondent shall bear the whole of its own legal fees and costs in connection with the Arbitration; and

i. All other claims of the Claimant and the claims of the Respondent are dismissed."

2. A challenge to the award was made under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 however, the same was dismissed vide judgement dated 11th March, 2015.

3. The present execution petition was filed on 21st April, 2015 upon the dismissal of the Section 34 petition.

4. Thereafter, MMTC preferred an appeal to the Ld. Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed vide judgement dated 22nd January, 2016. MMTC, thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, which was again dismissed on 14th November, 2018. A review petition was also filed by MMTC before the Supreme Court, which is now stated to have been dismissed on 12th February, 2019.

5. The award, which has finally been upheld by the Supreme Court is sought to be executed by way of the present petition. The only question is in respect of the foreign exchange rate to be applied as the award is in US dollars. The issue to be considered is - What is the foreign exchange rate to be applied? Whether the same should be calculated on the basis of conversion rate on the date of the award or on the date of dismissal of the Section 34 petition or on the date of dismissal of the SLP or on the date of dismissal of the review petition or finally on the date when the execution petition is being disposed of.

6. Ld. counsel for the Decree Holder relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Forasol versus Oil and Natural Gas Commission, (1984) supp1 SCC 263, and states that Forasol is clear and categorical. It lays down the principle that the date of final dismissal or decision would govern the rate of exchange that should be adopted for conversion. He relied upon paragraphs 24, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53 & 70 of Forasol.

7. He further relies upon two judgements of this Court in Furest Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited, (2012) 194 DLT 439 and Progetto Grano S.P.A. v. Shri Lal Mahal Limited Ex. P. No. 52/2012, (Decid