RENU SAAGAR POWER COMPANY Vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present I.A. No. 3 of 1990 the respondent-decree-holder seeks what is styled a "clarification" of the interlocutory order of stay dated 21-2-1990 made by this Court staying the operation of the judgment and decree under appeal subject to certain conditions. The relevant condition to which, apparently, the clarification pertains is at para 3(a) of the order dated 21-2-1990 and provides:

(2.) Shri Shanti Bhushan urged that the order dated 21-2-1990 which expressly, and in terms, stayed the "operation of the Judgment and decree under appeal" has had the effect of effacing the relevance of the date of the judgment and decree of the trial Court for ascertainment of the exchange rate and that the said order dated 21-2-1990 in requiring the amount to be calculated 'as on date' would substitute that date as the one with reference to which the exchange rate has to be ascertained. Even otherwise, it is urged, the date of the order of stay is the only logical substitute for the purpose.

(3.) Dr. L. M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the appellant-judgment-debtor, would, however, maintain that the relevant date for calculation of the exchange-rate would continue to be the date of the original decree of the High Court as, indeed, had been made clear in the order of the Appellate Bench of the High Court and as recognised in the case of Forasol v. O.N.G. Commission, (1984) 1 SCR 526: (AIR 1984 SC 241). Dr. Singhvi urged that the stay order did not concern itself with the exercise of identifying any date for purpose of calculation of the exchange rate and that the expression 'as on date' indicated the point of time for the calculation of accrued interest and not for ascertaining the exchange rate. The stay order, Dr. Singhvi contends, did no more than to prevent the execution of the decree and did not seek to efface the relevance of the date of the decree which was otherwise relevant for the purpose.