JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this application, the applicant (original respondent) is seeking direction for release of the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court pending hearing of the arbitration petition.

3. In the present case, the petitioner has filed arbitration petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being aggrieved by award dated 2/5/2018 passed by a sole arbitrator, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay specific amount with interest to the respondent.

4. The petition is still at admission stage although more than five years have lapsed from the date of the arbitral award. It is relevant to note that the petition was taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. It was extensively heard but on 11/12/2018, this Court had to adjourn the hearing of the petition as it was found that the hearing may not conclude, considering that it was a day before the Court was to close for vacation.

5. Thereafter, the petition remained on the admission board of this Court. On 16/9/2021, a notice of motion filed by the petitioner for granting unconditional stay was taken up for consideration. Upon hearing the counsel, this Court found that no case was made out for grant of unconditional stay, particularly because the award, at least prima facie, appeared to be passed purely on facts and the evidence led by the parties. This Court further observed that prima facie the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner were unimpressive and no case was made out for grant of unconditional stay. The notice of motion was disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.18 Crores in this Court. By the very same order dated 16/9/2021, this Court granted liberty to the respondent to withdraw the said amount upon furnishing bank guarantee to be renewed from year to year. It is an admitted position that since the respondent could not furnish the bank guarantee, the amount could not be withdrawn. The same is lying in this Court, invested as per standard practice.

6. The petition came up for further consideration on various dates, but it could not be taken up for hearing and final disposal. It was directed to be listed on 25/4/2023 for hearing / disposal, but it was adjourned to 27/4/2023. On the said date also, considering the number of matters seeking urgent ad-interim reliefs, listed before this Court, it was found that even if the hearing of the petition commences, it would be difficult to complete the hearing, in the light of the fact that the vacation was round the corner.

7. At this stage, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that although the petition has remained pending at admission stage for more than five years, the respondent is deprived of the fruits of the award. It was emphasized that the arbitration proceedings itself took about four years and that the respondent has been waiting to see the colour of money for almost 10 years. It was submitted that in these circumstances, this Court may consider allowing withdrawal of at least part of the amount on appropriate undertaking to be furnished on behalf of the respondent, in the interest of justice. The said prayer was vehemently opposed on behalf of the petitioner. In that light, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that an application for withdrawal of the amount on undertaking can be filed before this Court. Accordingly, the matter was kept for hearing today with liberty to the respondent to file such application and opportunity to the petitioner to file reply affidavit to the same. The present application came to be filed in this backdrop. The reply affidavit on behalf of the petitioner was e-filed yesterday, but perhaps it could not be taken on record. The petitioner is granted liberty to ensure that the reply affidavit is placed on record within one week from today.

8. Mr. Jagtiani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the app