Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, 1984 Supp SCC 263 held, “Court must select a date which puts Plaintiff in same position in which he would have been had Defendant discharged his obligation when he ought to have done, bearing in mind, rate of exchange is not a constant factor but fluctuates and very often violently fluctuates from time to time.” Court undertook a detailed examination and held, rather than date of Arbitral Award, date of Judgment and Decree under Section 17 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 is most appropriate to determine conversion rate. In present case, this date is 01.07.2014. It was necessary for us to delve into reason and principle behind selecting this date and to settle position of law on applicability of Forasol under 1996 Act.

Forasol was subsequently affirmed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644. Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Limited, (2018) 7 SCC 479 followed Forasol. Forasol has been widely considered and followed by this Court in various types of matters. There is no impediment for us to apply Forasol to cases under 1996 Act, even though it was decided under The Arbitration Act, 1940.

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, DLF Ltd. v. KONČAR Generators and Motors Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 7702 of 2019].