# FORASOL v. OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION - **Citation:** [1984] 1 S.C.R. 526 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1983-10-25 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6;!8 & 629 of 1981 - **Bench:** D.P. Madon, SABYASACH! MUKHARJi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/forasol-v-oil-natural-gas-commission-8496 - **Pages:** 68 ## Headnote I Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s. 47-Decree passed according to award in foreign curre'ncy without fixing rate Of exchange-In execution pro- . ceedings court niust decide and select proper date for fix/11g rate of exchange-Criteria for selection of date-Date which puts plaint~ff iii same posiiion in which he would have been had the defendant discharged his obligation when he ought to have done. Proper date is the date of decree. Arbitration Act, 1940-:-s. 17-Judginent according to the award-When it is. Provisions of s. 17 are different from the provisiOns Of s. 26 (1) of the English Arbitration Act. Precedents-English' decisions not binding but have high pursJ.1asiv.r value. -~ Prac/ice & procedure-General practice & procedure . to be followed .by plaintiff while claiming suni in foreign currency, arbitrator while making the · award and court while passing d~cree-Lai~ down. Forasol, it French Company having its principal office in P·aris,' Ffance, entered· into a contract on February 17, 1964 with Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), a Govern~ent of I~dia undCrtaking, for carrying. out . ·structural drilling in relation to the 'exploration for .oil.in India. Jllrticle IX-3 of the contract provided that the amount payable to Fora$Ol on account of operatiOnal fee, standqy fee, and equipment charges shall ·be computed in French Francs and ONGC shall pay so3· of that amount in French Francs, in Paris, France_, and the remaining 20% in Indian rupees using a fixed conversion rate of FF. 1.033=Re. 1.000. Art IX~1.2 provided that certain other charges, e.g., insurance, freight,. etc., incurred by .Forasol were to be reimburzed to Parasol by ONGC in "Indian rupees if the expenditure was initially incurred by Parasol in Indian rupees, otherwise in French Francs. Article X-2, X-3 ,and X-4 of the contract set out estimates of the payments to be made to Forasol in Frensh Francs, the invoicing 'rules and the rate of payment. Under_ Art. X·3.3, Forasol was to ilidicate in each of its invoices, the amount payable ·to it in French Francs and the amount payable to it in Indian rupees un~r the con· tract. Art. XI provided for paymentS to be made to Forasol in Indian rupees. The contract which was initially for a period of one year was extended twice and Addendum Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were added to the Contract. During the extended' period of the contract the Indian rupee was devalued in June 1966 and consequently Forasol ID:ade a claim tor conversion of Indian rupees into French • ,- .. • FORASOL V. 0.11.0. COMMISSION 527 Francs at a rate higher than the rate specified in Art. IX-3. The disputes and differences which arose between the partie~ were referr.cd to arbitration .. The Umpfre who made 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. The award further directed that from November 30~ 1966, the rupee portion should be converted at the higher rate of FF. 1,000 equal to rupees 1,517.80. The award was filed in the Delhi High Court and the High Court passed a decree in terms of the award simpliciter Without fixing ~ny date for Conversion of the French Francs into Indian · rupees, with interest at the rate of 6% per annun1 fron1 the date of the decree till the date of payment Neither party raised any objection lo tl1e said ·award or.to the form in which the said decree was passed. Forasol filed an applica· tion in the High Court for. execution of the decree .. ONGC contended that tho enhanced rate of exchange specified in the award was appliCable only with respect to the interest payable to 'Forasol from November 30, 1966 and that to the rest of the payments to be 1nade under the award either in French Francs or in Indian rupee, the contract rate of exchange was applicable. I\ single Judge of the High Court held that the coniract rate of exchange applied only to the rupee part of' the payn1ent in respect of the 'iten1s speci ## Text _Characters 0–39,999 of 176,805. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._ ' .A B • c D E F G B FORASOL v. OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (AND VICE VE 0 RSA) October 25, 1983 [D.P. MADON AND SABYASACH! MUKHARJi, JJ.j I Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s. 47-Decree passed according to award in foreign curre'ncy without fixing rate Of exchange-In execution pro- . ceedings court niust decide and select proper date for fix/11g rate of exchange-Criteria for selection of date-Date which puts plaint~ff iii same posiiion in which he would have been had the defendant discharged his obligation when he ought to have done. Proper date is the date of decree. Arbitration Act, 1940-:-s. 17-Judginent according to the award-When it is. Provisions of s. 17 are different from the provisiOns Of s. 26 (1) of the English Arbitration Act. Precedents-English' decisions not binding but have high pursJ.1asiv.r value. -~ Prac/ice & procedure-General practice & procedure . to be followed .by plaintiff while claiming suni in foreign currency, arbitrator while making the · award and court while passing d~cree-Lai~ down. Forasol, it French Company having its principal office in P·aris,' Ffance, entered· into a contract on February 17, 1964 with Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), a Govern~ent of I~dia undCrtaking, for carrying. out . ·structural drilling in relation to the 'exploration for .oil.in India. Jllrticle IX-3 of the contract provided that the amount payable to Fora$Ol on account of operatiOnal fee, standqy fee, and equipment charges shall ·be computed in French Francs and ONGC shall pay so3· of that amount in French Francs, in Paris, France_, and the remaining 20% in Indian rupees using a fixed conversion rate of FF. 1.033=Re. 1.000. Art IX~1.2 provided that certain other charges, e.g., insurance, freight,. etc., incurred by .Forasol were to be reimburzed to Parasol by ONGC in "Indian rupees if the expenditure was initially incurred by Parasol in Indian rupees, otherwise in French Francs. Article X-2, X-3 ,and X-4 of the contract set out estimates of the payments to be made to Forasol in Frensh Francs, the invoicing 'rules and the rate of payment. Under_ Art. X·3.3, Forasol was to ilidicate in each of its invoices, the amount payable ·to it in French Francs and the amount payable to it in Indian rupees un~r the con· tract. Art. XI provided for paymentS to be made to Forasol in Indian rupees. The contract which was initially for a period of one year was extended twice and Addendum Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were added to the Contract. During the extended' period of the contract the Indian rupee was devalued in June 1966 and consequently Forasol ID:ade a claim tor conversion of Indian rupees into French • ,- .. • FORASOL V. 0.11.0. COMMISSION 527 Francs at a rate higher than the rate specified in Art. IX-3. The disputes and differences which arose between the partie~ were referr.cd to arbitration .. The Umpfre who made 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. The award further directed that from November 30~ 1966, the rupee portion should be converted at the higher rate of FF. 1,000 equal to rupees 1,517.80. The award was filed in the Delhi High Court and the High Court passed a decree in terms of the award simpliciter Without fixing ~ny date for Conversion of the French Francs into Indian · rupees, with interest at the rate of 6% per annun1 fron1 the date of the decree till the date of payment Neither party raised any objection lo tl1e said ·award or.to the form in which the said decree was passed. Forasol filed an applica· tion in the High Court for. execution of the decree .. ONGC contended that tho enhanced rate of exchange specified in the award was appliCable only with respect to the interest payable to 'Forasol from November 30, 1966 and that to the rest of the payments to be 1nade under the award either in French Francs or in Indian rupee, the contract rate of exchange was applicable. I\ single Judge of the High Court held that the coniract rate of exchange applied only to the rupee part of' the payn1ent in respect of the 'iten1s specified in Art. IX3.1 and that in respect of the other paymeD.ts to be made ·to Forasol in French Francs the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of the decree would apply. In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the enhanced rate of exchange specified in th~ award applied only to the interest payable to Forasol and tliat with respect. to the rupee amount the contract rate of exchange applied. It further held that as the award was in French Francs, by reasons of the provisioD.s of the Foreign Exchang~ Regulation Act, 1973, before execu· ting the award the French Francs would have to be converted into· Indian " rupees at the rate of exchange ·prevailing on the date of the said award. Thi~ judgment and order of the Division Bench was. challenged in these cross appCa1s. The questions which arose for consideration were: (1) Whether the rate of conversion mefltioned in the coritract applied to all the payments to be made under the;: contract whether' in Indian 1 upees or in Fren~h Francs, or only to 20 per cent of the amount in French Francs, payable by ONGC to Porasol in Indian rupees in respect of Forasol's operational fee, standby fee and equipment charges; t2) whether the enhanced rate of exchan~e specified in the award· was applicable to all the payments in Indian rupees under Art. IX-3.1 of the contract to be made by ONGC to Forasol or only to the interest .. 0!1 the amount in French Francs payable to Forasol by, ONGC; and t3) which was.the proper date to be selected for converting into Jndian,rupees the French Francs part of the award in respect of which no rate of exchange ·had been fixied either by the contrac~ or by the award ? Two further. questions which were inextricably Jinked with question No. (3) above were: (1) whether an arbitrator or umpire can make an award in a foreign currency; and (2) whether a court can simplicit~r pass a decree in terrr.s of such an award wit-bout speci· fying the rate of exchange at which the foreign currency amount will have to be converted into Indian rupees. Allowing the appeal of Forasol and dismissing that of ONGC, A B c D E F G H A I B c D • S28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 1 S.C~R. HELD : I. U.nder Art. IX-3. l of the contract For ... ol .had a¥reed to accept 20 per cent of Its operational fee, standby fee and equipment charges in Indian rupees but wanted Jh~t the remaining 80 per cent of these fees and charges as also the other amounts which were ·payable to it under the contract should be paid to it in·F.rench Francs only. If Forasol were to indicate sepa~ rately in its invoices the payment to be made to it in French Francs and in Indian rupees and if the payment of such ·Francs was to be niade in Paris, France, in French Francs, the Question of providing for a rate· of exchange in the , said contract for cOnverting French Francs into Indian rupees cannot arise. Such , conversion rate could only be in respect of the amount payable to Forasol in - Indian rupees. It is thus only the 20 per cent of the said fees and charges coiTiputed in French in Forasol's invoices bui payable-in Indian rupees which was to be converted at the rate of exchange specified in the contrac~. This interpretatiOn receives further suppOrt from Art. 2.2 of Addendum No. 2 and· Art. -2.5 of Addendum N·o. 3 under which amounts iefundable by Forasol to ONG_C wCre to be refunded iri the same currency in which ONGC had paid th~ earlier. [544 C-F] 2 The Division Bench of the High Court was in er.tor in. holding that the enhanced rate of exchan_ge specified in the award applied only to the amou_nt of interest payable to Forasol. The enhanced rate of exchange .applied to the payments in Indian.rupees. under Art. lX-3:1 of the contract to be made by ONGC to Forasol from and after November 30, 1966. [548 D·E] • 3. In an action to recover an amount pa)'able in a foreign ·currency, five"dates compete for selection by t.he Court-as the proper date for fixing the ~ rate of exchange at which the foreign currency amount has to be coverted into ( E -.... the currency of the country in which the action has been commenced and • ).j~ decided. These dat~s are : F G B (I) the date when the amount be.came due aod payable; (2) the date of commencement of the action; ~ (3) . the date of the decree; (4) the date when the court ordCrs execution to issue; and (5) the date when the decretal amount is paid or realized. In a case where a decree had been passed, by the· court in terms of an award made. in a foreign currency ·a sixth. date also enters the competition, namely, the date of the award. [548G-549B] The question which one -out of the dates mentioned above is the proper date to be selected by the Court does not appear to have been decided in t~is country. The question, however, has formed the subject-matter of decisions - in England. Th~ English decisions are of Courts of a country froo:l whiCh we have derived our jurisprudence and a large part of our laws and in which the · judgments were delivered by judges held in high repute. Undoubtedly, none ._? ' ' FOR~SOL V. O.N.G. COMMISSION of tbeS"e decisions are binding upon this Court but they are authorities of high pursuasive valu_e to which we may legitimately _turn for assistance.. Whether the rule laid down in any of· these cases can be applied by our Courts mus~, however, be j_udged in the conteXt of our own Jaws and Jegal procedure and the practical realities of.litigation in our country. [549G; 5680] Miliangos 'i. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd., L.R. [1976] A.C. 443; Tom- · kinson and Anr. v. First Pennsyl_vania Banking &,Trust Co., L.R. {1961] A.C. 1007; [1960] 2 Ail E.R. 332; Sub-nom in re United Fat/ways of Hal'ana and Reg/a Warehouses Ltd., L.R. [1960] Ch, 52; [1959] l All E.R. 214; Jugos/a- . venska Oceanska Plovibda v. Castle Investment Co. Inc., ,[1973] 3 All E.R. 498~ . ,Beswick v. Beswick, L.R· [1968] A.C 58; [1967] 2 All E.R. 1197; Dr. Mann, The Legal Aspect of Money, 3rd Edn. [1971], p. 363; Sdorsch Meier G.m.b H. v. Rennin, [1975] I All E.R. 152;· Miliangos v. G~"'ge Frank (Textiles) Ltd., [1975] I All E.R. 1076; Practice Statement (Judical Precedent), (1966) I W.L.R 1234; ·Owners of M. V. E/eftherolria v. The Owners fJ/ ·M. V. Despina R-The Dispina Rand Services Eu.rope At/antique Sud (Seas) Of Paris V. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag S~ea of Stockholm, L.R. [1979] A.C: 685; Practice directions, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 83; ·[1976] I All E.R. 669; The Zafiro, John Carl/om & Co. Lid. v. Owner; of S.S. Zafiro, L.R. (1960) p. I at 14; [1959] 2 All~ .R .. 537 at 544; E.D. &. F. Man v. Socfete Annonyme Tripolitiane Das Usines De Raffinage De Sucre, t1970] 2 Llyod's L. Rep. 416 and Russel on Arbitration; 20th edn. page 375, referred to. 4. When a foreigner Pas to receive a sum of money ~hich shpuld j~stIY be payable to him in a foreign currency and because of the default of the paying party, seeks to recoyer its payment through the court, the first question which arises is whether a court in India would have jurisdiction to pass a decree for a sum' expressed ill a foreign currency. Though on princjple there Is no r~sOn why a court should not be able to do so, nO court can ~ass a decree directing a. defendant to do an impossible or an illegal act and in view Of the ·provisions of our Fo~eign Excl;iange Regulation Act, 1973) ·and the restrictions contained tlierein on making payments in a foreign currency, if a decree were to be passed simpliciter for a sum expressed in a foreign currency, it would be to direct the defendant io do an 'act which Would be in violation of the Foreign Exchan&e Regulation· Act, 1973. Such a decrCe can, therefore, only be passed by making the payment in foreign currency subject to the permission of the foreign exchange authorities beinc: granted. If, however, the authorities do not grant permission for payment of the judgment debt in foreigri currency, it would not be pOssible for the defendant to make.such. payment, resulting in the decree becoming irifructuous and the plaintiff getting nothing under it. The court must, therefore, provide- for the eventuality -of the foreign exchange authorities not granting the requisite permission or even if such permission is given, the defendant not paying the decretal debt, or not wanting to discharge ihe decree _by making payment 1n foreign currency or in Indian rupees. This can only be done bY t.he decree pfoviding in the alternative for payment of a sum of money in Indian rupees, which will be equivalent to the sum decreed in foreign currency. It is but just that a man, who is in law entitled to receive a su1n of monCy in a foreign currency, should either receive it in such currency or should receive its equiva~ent in Indian rupees. It is here that. the question ... A B c E ' H ' B c D • B 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) i S.C.i\. of the date which the court should select for converting foreig11 currency into Indian rupee~ arise. The court n1ust select a date which puts the plaintiff in ~he same position in which he would have been had the defend.ant ~ischarged his obligation when he ougl\t to have done, bearing in inind that the rate of exchange is not a constant factor but fluctuates, and .very often violently fluctuates, from time to time. The.date when the amount became due and payable, docs not have the effect of putting the plaintiff in the same positjOn in which he would have been had the.defendant dischafged his obliga~ion when he should have done because between that date and the date when-. the suit is deCreed [the rate of exchange may have fluctuated to the plaintiff's prejudice, resulting in the a:11ounf decreed. in rupees representing only a fraction of what he was entitled to rCceiVe. Equally, the possibility of the plaintiff getting mo;e than ·whai he had bargain~ ed for in case the rate of exchange. had fluctuated in hia favour cannot be ruled out. To select the date when the a1nount became du; or the "breach date'·', as.tlie English courts have terfiled it, is thus· to expose th<: parties to the unforeseeable changes in the international monetary market. The selection of the "breach date" cannot, therefore, be said to be just. fair or equitable. [563H-569D] The date of the commencement of the action or suit, is equally subject to the same criticism. The selection of the date of the filin2 of the suit would, therefore, leave the parties in as uncertain and precarious a position as the selection of the date when the amount became payable or the "breach date". [569 E-H] To select the date of the ·decree as the· conversion date would. be to adopt as unrealistic a 'standard as the '•breach date" because a money decree and the payment by the judgment debtor of the judgment debt under it are two vastly different matters Widely separated by successive execution applications and objections thereto unless the judgment d~btor ch.oases to pay up the judgment debt of his own accord which is generally not the case. In the vaE:t majority of cases a rlioney decree is required to be· enforced by execution._ {570 A-E] The selection of the date when the court orders execution to issu~ is equally beset with difficulties. [570 G] In selecting the date of paymenf as the proper dafe of coriversion there are three practical and procedural diffi~ulties, namely, paymC.nt of court fees, the pecuniary limit Of the jurisdiction of courts and executiOn. {572 B-E] This then leaves .tbe court with only three dates from which to make the . seleciion, namely, the date when the amouht became payable, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of the judgment, that is, the date of passing the decree .. It would be fairer to both the parties for the court to take the la.test of these dates, namely, the date of passing the decree, that is, the date of the judgmen.t. (575 FJ ' ).. - ··" • ·~· PORASOL V, O.N.G, COMMISSION 531 . S. Under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1949 the judgment which the court pronounces is to be "according to the award''. Where the award directs a certain sum o_f money to be paid and the cOurt, in a case where it has not modified or corrected the award under section 15, pronounces judgment· for a different _sum, the judgment cannot be said to be "according to the award''. In the same way, where an award directs payment of a sum of money in foreign currency and the court while proriouncing judgment provid~s for it's rupee equivalent at the rate of exchan'ge prevailing on 'the date of the award, the court will not be pro'Douncing judgment "according to the award" if in the meantime the rate of exchange has varied, because at the date of the judgment the foreigti currency equivalent of the amount in rupees provided in the judgment Would be different· from the foreign currency sum directed to be paid by the awafd. The judgment, therefore, can only be said to be "according to the award" if it directs payment of the rupee equivalent at the rate of c::xchange prevailing on the date of pronoupcing the judgment which date is the same as the date of the passin~ of tho decree. [584G·585B] 6. The Division Bench pf the High Court has committed an error in equating s. 26 (1) of the English Arbitration Act withs. 17 of our Arbitration Act. The reason for this error is that the Division ·Bench has proceeded upon a wrong '·assumption that the procedural scheme of the English Arbitration Act is the same as that of our Arbitration Act. The provisions for enforcing an award under the English Act and under our Act are different. Grantina ·leave under s. 26 of the English Act and pronouncing judgment according to ·the award and passing a decree under .s. 17'of our Act mean different tbingA and have different results. A judgment according to the award under s .17 of our Act will speak only from the date of the judgment which will not b1 the case under s. 26 (1) of the fnglish Act, for while in the first case what will be enforceable by the processes by law, namely execution, will be the decree passed in terms of the award, in the second case it will be the.award itself, unless the applicant desires to have judgment entered in terms of the award. [585C, 58SEJ Satish Kumar and Ors. v. Surinder Kum•r and Ors .• (1969) 2 S.C.R. l4.4, distinguished. 7. The practice, which ought to be followed in suits in which a sum of money expressed in a foreign currency can legitimately be claimed by the plaintiff and decreed by the court is as follqws. Jn such a suit, the ·plaintiff, who has not received the amount due to him in a foreign currency and, therefore, dosires to seek the assisptnc,e of the court to recover that amount, bas two courses open to him. He can either claim the amount due to him in Indian currency or in t_be foreign currency in which it was payahle. If he chooses the first altern.ative, he can only sue for that amount as converted into Indian rupees and his prayer in the plaint cart only be for a sum in Indian currency. For this purpOse, the plaintiff would have to convert the foreign currency.amount due to him into Indian rupees. He Can do so eith~ at-the rate of exch!tnge prevailing on the date when the amount be'Came payable for he was entitled to receive the amount on that date or, at his option, at the rate pf oxchange prevailing on the date of the filing of the suit be~ause that is th~ A 8 c D E F ,G A .. . B c D E F ·G H ·'. 532 SUPP.Bllfl! COURT P.BPdltTS ( 1984) l S.C.P.~ date on which he is seeking the assistance of the court · for recovering the amount due to him. In either event, the valuation of the. suit for the purposes , of court-fees and the pecuniary limit ~f the jurisdicti(!n of the court v.·ill be the amount in Indian currency clain1ed in the suit. The plaintiff may, hov.-ever, choose the ... second course open to him and claim in foreign CUt'rency the ·?mount due tOhim. In such a suit; the proper prayer for the plaintiff t6 make . ' in his plaint would be for a decree thaf t11e defendant do pay to him· the foreign ·currency sum claimed in the plaint subject to the p1;:rmission. of the concerned authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, being granted and t'hat in the event of the forefgn exchange authorities not granting. the ·re'quisite permission or the defendant not wanting to make payn1ent in foreign currency even though such permission has been granted or the dffendant not making payment in foreign currency or. in Jnd_ian rupees, w"f1ctLer ·sach perrnission'has been gran.ted or not, the defendant do pay to the pla~ntiff the rupee equivalent of the foreign currency sum claimed at the rate of excbange .prevailing on the date of the judgment. For the purposes of court-fees and ju.risdiction the plaintiff should,·however, value his.claim in the suit. by converting the foreign currency sum claimed by him into Indian rupees 'at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of the filing of. .the· suit or the date nearest or most nearly preceding such date, stating in his plaint what ~uch rate of exchange is. He s_hould further ghe an undertaking in the plaint that he would make good the deficiency in the court-fees, if any, if at the date of the judgment, at the rate of exchange then prevailing, the rupee equivalent .of the foreign currency sum decreed is higher than that mentioned in the plaint for the purposes of court-fe.es and jurisdiction. At the• hearing of such a suit, before passing the decree. the coUrt should call upon the plaintiff to prove the rate of exchange prevaiUng on the date of the j~dgment or on the date nearest or most nearly preceding the date of the judgment. If necessazy, after delivering judgment on all other issues, the court may stand over the rest of the jlldgment and the passing of the decree and adjourn the matter to enable the plaintiff ·to pfove such rate of exchange. The decree to be passed by the court should be one which orders the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the foreign ~urrency sum adjudged by the court subject. to the requisite permission of the concerned authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, ; o.N.o. COMMISSION S33 order. ln'all such cases, execuiion can only issue for the rupee equivalent specified in the decree, appellate d~cree or final order, ·as the case may be. These questions, of course, would not arise if pending appeal or other proceedings· adopted 1Jy tμe · defendant the decree l1as been executed of the money thereunder received by the plaintiff. [587D-589C] s.' Just as the courts have. power tO make a decree for a ·sum of money expressed in a foreign curency subject to the limitaions and cOnditlons set out above, the-arbitrators or umpire have the power to make an a~ard for a_ sum of money expressed in a foreign currency. The arbitrators or umpire should, hoWever, provide in the a war~ for the rate of exchange at which tlte sum awarded in a foreign cu,rrency should be converted in the events mentioned above. This may be done by the arbitrators or umpire taking.either the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of the award or the date nearest or most ne~rly preceding the date of the award· or by directing that the rate of exchange at which conversion is to be made would be the date when the court pronounces judgment according to'. the award and passes the decree in terms thereof or the date nearest or most nearly preceding the date of the jndgment as the court' may determine. ·If the arbitrators or umpire omit to p~ovide for the rate of coversion, this would not by itself·be sufficient to invalidate ihe award. The court May either remit the award,undei: section 16 of the.Arbitration Act, 1940, for the purpose of .fixing the ·date ,of convCrsiori or may do so itself taking the date of conversion as the date of its judgment ·or the date nearest or inost nearly preceding it,· following the procedure outlined abOve for· the purpose of proof of the rate of exchange prevailing On-such date. If, howe~ver, the person liable under such an award desires to make payment of the sum in foreign currency awarded by the arbitrators or umpire without the award being 1nade ~ rule of the court, he would be at" liberty to do so· after obtaining the requisite permission of the concerned authorities under the Foreign Exchange RegulatiOn Act, 1973, 9; In the instant case the party· entitled to recei~~ the money-Forasol-Was · a foreign party. -Under the said contract, the currency .of accouDt was a foreign currency and so was the currency of payment except for a portion thereof. Forasol was, therefore, entitled, on payment not being made to it by ONGC, to receive in French Francs the amounts which became. payable to it in that currency. The Uinpire was, therefore, justified in Providing that the amounts payable under,the said award to Forasol in French Francs should be paid i~ French currency. The Umpire has, how_ever; neither provided tl:~at such payment would be subject to the permission ~of the foreign excha"nge authorities being obtained nor specified. the,,conversion rate to be applied in the· eventu~ 8.Uties set-0ut above. That, however, dees not make any difference becaus~ neither party has objected to the said _award on this ground. On the contrary, both parties have accepted the said award as binding and conclusive, As mentioned above, this ·omission on the part of the Umpire could have been corrected by the High Court when it came to pronounce jlldg'ment according to. the said award and pass the said decree in terms thereof. The decree passed in ; terms_ of the said award, however, does not specify either the rupee equivalent . of the amount in French Francs payable to Forasol or the rate of exchange at wl~.ich the conversion of such, am?unt into Indian rupees should be made. To that pxtent, tho decree pas!!C!I in terms of the said award hr t.he HiJh Court w~s not 0 D E G H A B c D G H 534 SUPREME COURT RllPORTS (1984) 1 S,C.R. a proper decree. Both the partiCs have, however, accepted the said decree and have not challenged it on' this ground in any proceedings. Jn any eVent, the aforesaid mistake in the said decree was one which could have been got corrcc· ted by an application for review or by an appltcation under section 152 or;in any event under section 151, of the Code of Civil Pcocedure 1908. The decree has noW become final and binding upon the Parties. Bdth the paities have acCeptcd the said dec~ee and the said deC:ree cannot, therefore, be said to be invalid on the ground of the above omission to specify either the rupees equi· valcnt of the French Franc portion of the said award or the .rate of exchange at which such French Franc portion was to be ccnverted into its rupee equivalet;it. For theioe reasons we hold that the learned Sing:.e Judge rightly took the date of the decree as the date of conyersion. [590C-591Bj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6;!8 & 629 of 1981. Appeals by Special Le;tve from the Judgment and Order dated the 21st December, 1979 of the Delhi High .Court in E:F.A. (0.S.) No: 5 of 1977. Shankar Ghosh, and D.N. Gupta, for the Appellant in CA. 628/81 & for Respondent in CA. No. 629/81. B. Dutta for the Respondent in CA. 628/81 and for appellants in CA. No. 629 /81. Tlie Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. Thesa cross appeali by special leave arise out of execution proceedings adopted by Forasol, a French Company,. having its principal office in Paris, France, against the Oil and Naiural Gas Commission, a statutory bod'.Y incorporated under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (Act XLlll of 1959), hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'ONGC'. On July 30, 1962 the Government or' India invited global tenders for structural drilling for exploration of oil in the Jaisalmer area of the State of Rajasthan. The tender of Forasol was accepted by the Gover~ment of India and in pursuance thereof a contract dated February 17, 1964, headed "Structural' Drilling Contract", was entered into between Oi'!GC and Forasol. Under the said contract, ONGC engaged Forasol to carry out structural drilling in relation to the exploration for oil in the Jaisalmer area of the ·State of Rajas- \1:\an on the \erms and conditions contained in the said contract. ... , • FORASOL v. O.N.G. COMMISSION (Madon, J.) . . 535 The said contract was fo·r a period of one year commencing from the date of the start of the drilling work. The said contract also gave an option to ONGC to extend the period by one more year. Arti~le IX-3 of the said contract dealt with the currency of payment. It provided as follows : "IX-3.1. The operational fee, standby fee and equipment charges payable to FORASOL have been specified in French Francs in Article_IX-1.1.1 to IX-1.I.10 above. The'amount payable to FORASOL on accounl of aforesaid fees and charges shall be computed in French Francs ONGC shall pay 80% of the aforesaid amount in French Francs and the remaining 20% in Indian Rupees using a fixed conversion°rate of FF. J.033=Re. 1.000." • Under Article IX-3.2 the cosl as well as the insurance, packing, forwarding a.nd clearing charges in respect of the materials provided by Forasol and the freight, insurance, paeking, forwarding and clearing charges for transportation from a sea port or air port in France to India and back to a sea port in France or outside France if Forasol so chose, in respect of the rig, equipment, machinery, tools and other materials provided by Forasol were to be reimbursed to Forasol by ONGC in Indian rupees, if the expenditure was initially incurred by Forasol in Indian rupees, otherwise in French Francs. Under a Credit Agreement arrived at between the Gqvernment of India and the Goveq1ment of Fra_nce, the Government of France bad agreed to provide credit facilities to a limited extent to . the Government of India for the import of plant, machinery, equipment and materials and for execution of certain projects including oil exploration. Under the said Credit Agreement, credit was to be given by the French' suppliers to the Indian buyers in the form of acceptance of payments on• deferred basis upon the conditions laid down in. the letters dated February 5,. 1 <)62, exchanged between the' ., Governments of India and France. Consequently, in respect' of the said contract, Forasol had agreed under Article X-1.1 thereof to accept payment of its fees, costs and charges payable in French Francs on deferred basis under the overall conditions of the said • letters exchanged between the two Governments and Forasol _and ONGC had agreed upon the estimates of the payments to be made to Forasol in ·French_ Francs under the said contract, the invoicing rules and the mode of payment. Articies X-2,tX-3 apd X-4 <_lf the B G .• l!l • I G B B • l!l . • . G . ' 536. SUPREME COURT REP