The court ruled that allegations of fraud must be considered at the interim stage under Section 36(3), ensuring that the provision is not rendered ineffective.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

Heard Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. In all the petitions the questions involved being the same, all petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.

3. The petitions are filed assailing the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Belagavi in granting the stay of the award on a condition that the petitioner has to deposit 25% of the award amount.

4. The petitions are also filed assailing the orders rejecting the application to review the said order directing 25% of the award amount to be deposited by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has to file application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’) and must seek revision of the impugned order. Section 115 of the Code after the amendment in the year 2002 does not provide for revision unless the order in favour of the revision petitioner terminates the proceeding before the Trial Court. In case the petitioner was to file a revision petition and in case the revision petition is allowed the proceeding before the Trial Court will not be terminated.

6. The orders which are questioned before this Court are the orders under Section 36 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’). The orders are interlocutory orders. Hence, the remedy of appeal is also not available to the petitioner under Section 37, Act of 1996. Under these circumstances, the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner would contend that under Section 36 (3), the party can urge for blanket stay order without there being any condition to deposit the award amount, in case it is established that award is obtained by practicing fraud or agreement or contract is procured by practicing fraud. 8. To substantiate the contention that it is a case of fraud, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that on 13.05.2011 an order is passed debarring the petitioner from participating in the tender of this nature. It is his further submission that the application invited by the petitioner clearly imposed a condition that, in case the applicant is debarred from participating in the tender, then that would be a disqualification to participate in the tender.

9. It is urged that as the petitioner suppressed the fact that he is debarred vide order dated 13.05.2011 from participating in a tender of this nature, the case is made out under Section 36 (3) of Act of 1996 to seek a stay order without any condition for deposit.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the ban order referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General was set aside by the Bombay High Court in M.B. Patil Constructions Ltd. Vs. The Government of India & Others, W.P. No.8068/2012. Learned counsel for respondent inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph No.3 of the said order would also contend that the respondent in the said proceeding has admitted that order dated 13.05.2011 is passed without issuing no