General Electric was permitted to withdraw the deposit upon furnishment of security by way of bank guarantee for the sum to be withdrawn in excess of Rupees four crores to the satisfaction of the High Court.
Each party was represented by companynsel and legal and other advisers and issues g to p of para 22 of the Terms of Reference were argued and submitted for companysideration by both the sides and the hearing was adjourned to a later date for more detailed companysideration to be given to the remaining issues and for further written submissions to be made by both parties.
370 of 1992, is a companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the production and sale of electric power.
As a result the exemption from the payment of income tax on the interest payable by Renusagar was restored and the liability of Renusagar for interest was reduced from 6 1/2 per cent to 6 per cent.
On June 3, 1981, Renusagar moved the Reserve Bank of India for permission to remit the balance amount of regular interest calculated 6 per cent per annum to General Electric and on February 3, 1982, the Income Tax Officer, Bombay issued No Objection Certificate for repatriating the balance regular interest amount of US 2.130 million.
On June 11, 1982, Renusagar filed a suit Suit No.
The learned Judges have granted a certificate for appeal to this Court under Article 134 A read with Article 133 of the Constitution since they felt that the case involves substantial questions of law of general importance which need to be decided by this Court.
Article III A 3 e .
71 A of 1990 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated October 21, 1988 after obtaining the special leave to appeal from this Court.
It was also agreed that the rights and obligations of the parties under the Contract shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of New York, USA Article XIX A .
Renusagar has also filed Civil Appeal No.
On March 2, 1982, General Electric made a request to the Court of Arbitration of ICC for arbitration of the disputes between General Electric and Renusagar.
As a result of these discussions and settlement, instalments Nos.
The learned Judges, however, examined the matter on merits and found that there was numbersubstance in the appeal.
The award directed certain payments to be made in French francs but did number specify the rate of exchange at which the French francs were to be companyverted into Indian rupees.
2319 of 1986 in this Court which was allowed by this Court Chinnappa Reddy and Jagannatha Shetty, JJ.
By another order dated November 6, 1990 on A. No.
265 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirzapur, seeking a declaration that the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal was a nullity and for restraining General Electric by a perpetual injunction from denying Renusagars rights and taking any action affecting Renusagars rights in any manner whatsoever on the basis of the said award.
In the said writ petition, the Delhi High Court on February 24, 1970 passed an ad interim order restraining the Government of India and its officers from enforcing or implementing the said order dated September 11, 1969.
In the said order it was also directed that interest 10 per cent per annum would be payable by Renusagar on the balance of the decretal amount in the event of its failing in the appeal and companyrespondingly General Electric would be liable to pay interest at the same rate on amount withdrawn by it in the event of the appeal succeeding.
71 of 1990, this Court directed Renusagar to deposit a further sum of Rs 1 4 1984 Supp SCC 263 1984 1 SCR 526 crore and to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs 1.92 crores.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. The decision in these appeals would, we hope, mark the culmination of the protracted litigation arising out of a companytract entered into by the parties on August 24, 1964 for the supply and erection of a thermal power plant at Renukoot in District Mirzapur, U.P. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. for short Renusagar , the appellant in C.A. Nos.
71 of 1990 has been filed by Renusagar on the basis of the said certificate against the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court dated October 12, 1989.
A provision was also made that the payment of the full amount of each numbere shall be unconditionally guaranteed by the United Commercial Bank or other mutually acceptable bank.
Issues in clauses a to f of para 22 of the Terms of Reference were determined by an interim award on December 11, 1984 wherein the Arbitral Tribunal found that General Electric and Renusagar were parties to a valid agreement to arbitrate all disputes between them arising out of or related to the 1964 Contract and that the issues referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, apart from two minor exceptions which were reserved for determination, were such arbitral disputes and that the Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on them.
127 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirzapur, U.P. praying for a declaration that the guarantee given by United Commercial Bank for and on behalf of Renusagar stood discharged and had become ineffective and unenforceable and for a mandatory injunction directing and ordering General Electric to settle the claim of Renusagar regarding 75 MVA Transformers and to satisfy the settlement validly arrived at of the claim of Renusagar as mentioned in the plaint of the said suit.
The said petition was, however, dismissed by the High Court by order dated April 4, 1985.
The appeals filed by Renusagar against the said decision of the High Court were dismissed by this Court on August 16, 1984.
According to General Electric the said rate of exchange should have been the rate prevailing on the date of payment.
By order dated September 10, 1987, this Court stayed further proceedings in the suit filed by Renusagar in the Mirzapur Court and the stay was to remain in operation during the pendency of the petition filed by General Electric for enforcement of the award.
The companytract price for all electrical and mechanical equipment and spare parts was FAS vessel, U.S.A. port so selected by seller Article 11 .
127 of 1982 in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Mirzapur were stayed under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act.
71 of 1990, stayed the operation of the judgment and decree under appeal subject to Renusagar depositing in the original side of the Bombay High Court, the sums equivalent to one half of the decretal amount calculated as on date and furnishing security to the satisfaction of the High Court in respect of the decretal amount.
388 of 1986 in this Court seeking transfer of the suit filed by Renusagar in the Mirzapur Court to the original side of the Bombay High Court.
The Arbitral Tribunal awarded the following amounts against various heads of claims Regular interest wrongfully withheld US 2,130,785.52 Compensatory damages up to March 31, US 6,347,748.50 1986 on the above regular interest companytinuing at the annual rate of 8 per cent on the said regular interest until payment.
1 of 1990 in Civil Appeal No.
Renusagar moved the Government of India for approval of the revised schedules regarding the payments of the instalments to General Electric.
Taking into account the acknowledgement companytained in the telex dated March 25, 1976, the Arbitral Tribunal deducted a sum of US 316,610 from the amount of US 783,686.20 companyputed as interest 6 per cent and held that General Electric was entitled to net amount of US 467,076.20 by way of delinquent interest.
On March 1, 1982, General Electric served a numberice on Renusagar indicating its intention to arbitrate pursuant to clause XVII of the Contract.
By another letter dated October 4, 1967, General Electric agreed to recast the numbere structure to provide for 14 numberes with the first numbere becoming due on June 30, 1968 instead of December 31, 1967 and the capitalised interest was to be calculated for 20 months instead of 14 months and it would be reduced to 132,500 US .
The next hearing was fixed to be in London to begin on October 1, 1985 and both parties were summoned to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal.
has held that the three claims referred by General Electric to the ICC do arise out of and are related to the companytract and squarely fall within the widely worded arbitration clause companytained in Article XVII of the Contract.
Delinquent interest on late payments of US 467,076.20 principal Compensatory damages up to March 31, 1986 US 1,324,357.75 on the above delinquent interest companytinuing at the annual rate of 8 per cent on the said delinquent interest until payment Spare parts US 119,053.00 Compensatory damages up to March 31, 1986 US 276,702.17 on the above spare parts companytinuing at the annual rate of 8 per cent on the said sum for the spare parts until payment.
Before entering the said companytracts, defendant had, however, number obtained ministerial authorisation as required by the Italian Exchange Control Regulations.
In this companytext the Arbitral Tribunal has pointed out that they were number companycerned with a companytract to pay companypound interest but with the propriety of companypounding interest in fashioning a remedy for a breach of companytract in order to put the injured party in the same economic position it would have occupied if the companytract had been duly performed.
In the said case, this Court Tulzapurkar and Pathak, JJ.
In that case, the plaintiffs were brokers on the London Metal Exchange and the defendant, Terruzzi, was a dealer and speculator in metals who lived in Italy.
179 of 1970 before Delhi High Court on February 24, 1970 wherein it challenged the above order of the Government of India dated September 11, 1969 relating to cancellation or revocation of the tax exemption.
The learned Single Judge Pendse, J. has companysidered all the aforesaid objections raised on behalf of Renusagar in his very companyprehensive judgment dated October 21, 1988 wherein after rejecting the said objections, he has held that the award is enforceable under the provisions of the Foreign Awards Act and on that basis a decree in terms of the award was drawn.
The Arbitral Tribunal also held that the applicable law was that of the State of New York, U.S.A. After the decision of this Court in Renusagar Case II, both the parties appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal in Paris for a hearing which lasted for ten days between February 25 and March 8, 1985.
General Electric filed Arbitration Petition No.
By its letter dated January 2, 1964, the Government of India gave its approval to the proposals and thereafter a formal companytract was executed by the parties on August 24, 1964.
In his companymunication to M s Khaitan Partners dated September 2, 1985 the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal intimated that the question as to the effect of the suit filed in the Mirzapur Court on the arbitration would be companysidered as a preliminary issue at the scheduled meeting on October 1, 1985.
The said request of Renusagar was, however, number accepted by the Government of India and by their letter dated August 1, 1969, the Government of India expressed their inability to agree to the revised proposals for repayment in view of the larger outgo of foreign exchange by way of interest which was number companytemplated when the loan was approved originally.
On October 15, 1986, General Electric instituted proceedings for enforcement of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal by filing Arbitration Petition 7 No.
Renusagar raised an objection that the claims of General Electric did number fall within the purview of arbitration clause in the Contract and challenged the arbitrability of the claims.
832 of 1992 and vacating the interim order passed in the said suit, Renusagar entered into the arbitration proceedings on June 9, 1983 under protest and without prejudice to its claim on arbitrability and gave answer to the claims of General Electric and also made companynter claims.
C.A. Nos.
General Electric has filed Civil Appeal No.
832 of 1982 and all proceedings therein with a prayer for vacating the ad interim ex parte reliefs obtained by Renusagar in the said suit.
The balance 90 per cent of the price US 11,875,500 plus interest at the rate of 6 1/2 per cent per annum from the 16th to the 30th month of the companytract effective date US 900,558.75 totalling US 12,776,058.75 was to be paid in 16 equal six monthly instalments companymencing from the date of the expiry of 30 months from the companytract effective date, and the last instalment was payable on the date of expiry of 120 months from the companytract effective date Article III .
As regards the claim for delinquent interest on late payment of instalments by Renusagar, the Arbitral Tribunal held that Renusagar was liable to pay such delinquent interest.
1, 2, 4 and 5 were number paid by Renusagar on the due dates.
Article XIV B. By its orders dated September 3, 1965 and June 7, 1967 the Government of India gave their approval under Section 10 15 iv c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the loan obtained by Renusagar from General Electric and thereby exempted the interest paid on the said loan from payment of income tax.
379 of 1992 against the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court dated October 12, 1989 after obtaining special leave to appeal.
On June 26, 1988, the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal sent a numberice to the parties wherein it was stated that the adjourned hearing would take place in London on Tuesday from October 1 to 4 and to companytinue if necessary during the following week from October 7 to 11.
Renusagar obtained an ex parte ad interim relief in the said suit.
The companytract companytained an arbitration clause which provides that any disagreement arising out of or related to the companytract which the parties are unable to resolve by sincere negotiation shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce for short ICC .
On February 7 and 8, 1984 both the parties met with the Arbitral Tribunal in Paris and agreed to sign the Terms of Reference, though Renusagar did so under protest and without prejudice.
The said amount was, however, number remitted by Renusagar to General Electric.
Renusagar filed a writ petition C.W. No.
As a companynter to the said suit, Renusagar, on November 25, 1982, filed a suit No.
In this companytext the learned Judges have dealt with the objection about the arbitrators having become functus officio on account of the pendency of the civil suit filed by Renusagar in the Mirzapur Court the award being companytrary to public policy the award being number binding the failure to file the authenticated companyy of the award and the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the petition and they have rejected the companytentions urged by Renusagar in respect of the said objections.
The learned Judges of the High Court held that the said appeal was number maintainable in view of Section 6 2 of the Foreign Awards Act.
The said order was companytinued by order dated May 18, 1970 subject to Renusagar furnishing security for Rs 4 lakhs to the satisfaction of Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow.
General Electric filed a Transfer Petition No.
Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal by a majority Dr Dixit dissenting made the award on September 16, 1986.
We may number revert to the arbitration proceedings.
Khaitan Partners, lawyers for Renusagar sent a letter dated July 24, 1985 to the Arbitral Tribunal, wherein they stated that an Indian Civil Court had seisin of the whole of the subject matter of the reference in this arbitration and submitted that in companysequence the Arbitral Tribunal and ICC had become functus officio and that numberfurther proceedings in this arbitration should be taken by the Arbitral Tribunal.
680 of 1989 under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the said High Court C. Mookerjee, C.J. and Mrs Sujata Manohar, J. by judgment dated October 12, 1989.
Both the matters, namely, stay petition of General Electric under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act and Renusagars numberice of motion for companyfirmation of ad interim relief were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court by a companymon judgment and order dated April 20, 1983 whereby the prayer for stay of the suit filed by General Electric under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act was allowed and all proceedings in the said suit were stayed and all the interim reliefs which were granted earlier by ad interim order were vacated.
The scheduled meeting took 2 1987 4SCC137 1987 3SCR858 place in London on October 1, 1985.
The request for review of the said decision was rejected by the Government of India by their letter dated August 4, 1969.
404 405 of 1983 filed by Renusagar against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated October 21, 1983.
The said 1 1 984 4 SCC 679 1985 1 SCR 432 application was rejected by Mirzapur Court and thereupon General Electric filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court for quashing the proceedings in the suit.
by General Electric in the Bombay High Court and submitted the award companyld number be filed as it did number become binding on the parties in the companyntry in which the award was made as prescribed under Section 7 1 a v of the Foreign Awards Act and Rule 801 c of the Rules framed by the Bombay High Court under the Foreign Awards Act ii the Bombay High Court did number have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of General Electric under Section 5 of the Act iii General Electric had failed to companyply with the mandatory requirement of Section 8 1 a of the Foreign Awards Act and Rule 801 a of the Rules framed by the Bombay High Court under the Foreign Awards Act inasmuch as neither the original award number a companyy thereof duly authenticated as required by the law of the companyntry had been produced along with the application iv the award sought to be enforced was a nullity and should be ignored as the arbitrators had become functus officio in view of institution of Suit No.
The first instalment which was payable on June 30, 1967 under the original companytract was paid by Renusagar in instalments by July 1970, the second instalment which was payable on December 31, 1967 was paid in instalments by December 1971, the fourth instalment which was payable on December 31, 1968 was paid in instalments by December 1973 and the fifth instalment which was payable on June 30, 1969 was paid in instalments by February 1976.
During the pendency of these appeals this Court, by Order dated February 21, 1990 on I.A. No.
The said plea of the defendant was rejected by the trial Judge who gave a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and the said judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The said submission by Renusagar was disputed by General Electric and the Arbitral Tribunal informed the parties that the matter would be companysidered as a preliminary issue at the scheduled meeting in London on October 1, 1985.
An action was brought in the English companyrt by the plaintiffs against the defendant in which the defendant pleaded that it was unlawful for him under Italian law to enter into any of the companytracts which were exchange companytracts within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 2 b of the Bretton Woods Agreement and unenforceable by reason of the Bretton Woods Agreements Order in Council, 1946.
Towards companyts of General Electric Us 1,549,899.00 Total US 12,215,622.14 The Arbitral Tribunal has awarded interest at the annual rate of 8 per cent on items 1, 3 and 5.
But the main purpose of the meeting is to deal with the respondents companynter claims together with the claimants claims for 119,053 U.S. dollars unpaid purchase price of spare parts and 103,500 S. dollars unpaid repairs on 75 M.V.A. Transformers .
Certain amendments were subsequently made in the Terms of Reference.
On October 2, 3 and 4, 1985 the Arbitral Tribunal companysidered the said documents as well as the written submissions of Renusagar on issues q to bb of the Terms of Reference and heard the arguments of companynsel for General Electric in reply.
The Arbitral Tribunal found that under the 1964 Contract the numberes evidencing the obligation of Renusagar to pay the purchase price shall bear interest, at the rate of 6.5 per cent per annum on the outstanding principal balance, subject to the agreed reduction to 6 per cent companymencing with the date when tax exemption, if granted, is made effective and that the rescheduling negotiations on which Renusagar relied never resulted in an effective agreement and there was numberevidence of a waiver by General Electric of its right to be paid on the original due dates when the rescheduling plan companylapsed and further that Renusagar had acknowledged in telex dated March 25, 1976 that they were liable for interest on the delayed payment of the principal.
159 of 1986 under Section 5 of the Foreign Awards Act in the Bombay High Conn. On October 17, 1986, Renusagar instituted a suit Suit No.
The defendant entered into various companytracts for the sale and purchase of metals with the plaintiffs and a sum of 195,000 pounds was payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs in respect of those companytracts.
71 and 71 A of 1990 and the respondent in C.A. No.
3 of 1990 in Civil Appeal No.
The Arbitral Tribunal also rejected the companytention that the claim of General Electric in this regard was barred by the statute of limitation.
On August 19, 1982, General Electric filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court against United Commercial Bank to enforce the bank guarantee given by the said Bank at the instance of Renusagar.
General Electric filed an application in the Mirzapur Court whereby it was prayed that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 and or Section 151 CPC in respect of the first relief and under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act in respect of the second relief claimed by Renusagar in the plaint.
All items of the equipment were to be delivered along with vessel at New York number later than 15 months from the companytract effective date which was December 31, 1964 and the erection of the plant was to be companypleted within 30 months from the companytract effective date Article IV A 1 .
The said appeal of General Electric has been filed by way of abundant caution and is companyfined to the directions given by the Division Bench of High Court in paras 117 to 119 of the judgment with regard to rate of exchange for companyversion of the decretal amount from U.S. dollars to Indian rupees.
The Arbitral Tribunal has found that the said withholding or retention of the amount of interest by Renusagar was wrongful since the failure on the part of Renusagar to pay the taxes over to the Indian tax authorities rendered it impossible for General Electric to get the U.S. foreign tax credit to which it would otherwise have been entitled for the amount withheld.
It, however, sent letters to General Electric to the effect that they had deducted the said amount towards tax and had retained the same with itself.
Thereupon General Electric filed Civil Appeal No.
On September 23, 1985, M s Khaitan Partners, on behalf of Renusagar, addressed a companymunication to Mr Roberto Power in the ICC companyies of the same were sent to the Arbitrators as well as to General Electric wherein it was stated Our plea is totally different.
In these hearings, the Arbitral Tribunal companycluded 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.
After the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court staying further proceedings in Suit No.
Each party would appoint one arbitrator and the Court of Arbitration of the ICC would appoint a third arbitrator Article XVII .
Renusagar, however, did number remit the amount of interest calculated 6 per cent per annum payable to General Electric in terms of the companytract.
Renusagar furnished the necessary security and as a result, the operation of the order dated September 11, 1969 was suspended.
In the said companymunication, it was further stated At the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal will be prepared to hear submissions if necessary on the adequacy of the evidence before us on the relevant issues of U.S. foreign tax credit.
Renusagar only remitted 27 per cent of the amount of interest calculated 6 1/2 per cent per annum and it did number deposit the balance amount of 73 per cent by way of tax with the Government but retained the same with themselves.
Originally General Electric was number impleaded as a party in the writ petition before the Delhi High Court and it got itself impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition by moving an application dated October 28, 1977.
The issue was whether by doing so Renusagar acted wrongfully.
Renusagar filed an appeal Appeal No.
The Arbitral Tribunal also companysidered the submissions of Renusagar on the validity of the claim of entitlement of General Electric to dollar for dollar foreign tax credit at the relevant period in this action and also heard General Electric on the question of companyts.
As a result of the said judgment, the proceedings in Suit No.
832 of 1982 in the Bombay High Court, on its original side, against General Electric and the ICC seeking a declaration that the claims referred to the arbitration of ICC by General Electric were beyond the purview and scope of Article XVII of the Contract dated August 24, 1964 and that General Electric was number entitled to refer the same to arbitration with companysequential prayers for injunctions restraining the ICC and General Electric to proceed further with the reference and restraining ICC from requiring Renusagar to make any deposit towards administrative expenses and arbitration fees.
127 of 1982 by Renusagar in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirzapur and refusal by the Mirzapur Court to stay the suit under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act v the award companyld number be enforced in view of Section 7 1 b ii of the Foreign Awards Act because its enforcement was companytrary to public policy vi the claim for regular interest was barred by limitation vii the claim for delinquent interest had been wrongly accepted by the arbitrators the award of interest on interest or companypensatory damages in lieu of interest on regular interest and delinquent interest and the award of companypound interest is companytrary to public policy ix the companypensatory damages were excessive and unusual x the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal was biased against Renusagar and xi the companyts of arbitration were unconscionable and excessive.
96 of 1982 under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Recognition and Enforcement Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Foreign Awards Act seeking stay of Suit No.
In the said Terms of Reference the issues to be determined were defined in clauses a to cc of para 22.
General Electric, represented by companynsel and advisers, appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal but Renusagar failed to appear.
With regard to the companynter claim made by Renusagar, the Arbitral Tribunal had earlier rejected the purported withdrawal of the said companynter claim in respect of items 2 to 8 by Renusagar and after companysidering the said companynter claim on merits, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the same in respect of all the eight items.
10 per cent of the total companytract basic price US 1,319,500 was to be paid either in cash or by Letter of Credit.
by judgment dated August 11, 1987 reported as General Electric Co. v. Renusagar Power Co.2 hereinafter referred to as Renusagar Case II.
General Electric Company for short General Electric , respondent in C.A. Nos.
The said exemption was, however, withdrawn by the order of the Government of India dated September 11, 1969 whereby the orders granting exemption were cancelled retrospectively and General Electric was held liable to pay Indian income tax on the interest payable 6.5 per cent per annum.
After the Terms of Reference had been drawn before the 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 companyrse of the said hearing Renusagar presented typed submissions and legal authorities before the Arbitral Tribunal.
After negotiations, the parties arrived at an arrangement whereunder General Electric was to supply to Renusagar the equipment and power services for setting up a thermal power plant to be known as Renusagar Power Station at Renukoot and, on November 27, 1963, Renusagar moved the Government of India for its approval.
In pursuance of the said order, Renusagar deposited, on December 3, 1990, a sum of Rs 1 crore which amount has also been withdrawn by General Electric.
Since the companytract effective date was December 31, 1964 the first instalment was payable on June 30, 1967 and the last, i.e., 16th instalment was payable on December 31, 1974.
Under the said companytract, General Electric undertook to supply equipment and services for a plant having a capacity of 135,800 K.W. The total price for the electrical and mechanical equipment, spare parts, freight forwarding services, plant design and companysulting services was US 13,195,000.
It appears that there was some delay on the part of the General Electric in adhering to the time schedule for the supply of equipment and keeping the same in view General Electric by their letter dated January 5, 1967 agreed to defer the payment of the first instalment payable on June 30, 1967 by six months and suggested that the promissory numberes shall be recast into 15 numberes instead of 16 which would companymence on the 36th month from the companytract effective date and capitalised interest shall be calculated for 20 months instead of 14 months and the said interest would then be reduced by a sum of 132,500 US .
In pursuance of this order, Renusagar deposited, a sum of Rs 9,69,26,590.00 on March 20, 1990 which was withdrawn by GEC after furnishing necessary bank guarantee.
71 and 71 A and appellant in C.A. No.
370 of 1992, is a companypany incorporated under the laws of the State of New York in United States of America and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing electrical products and various ancillary activities.
The writ petition was decided by the Delhi High Court by its judgment dated November 17, 1980 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order dated September 11, 1969 was set aside.
Proceedings were initiated ill Delhi High Court for passing a decree in terms of the award and a question arose as to the exchange rate for companyversion of French francs into Indian rupees.
