The main legal point established in the judgment is that post-award interest is mandatory, and the court has discretionary power to grant stay of an arbitral award, guided by the principles under Order XLI Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issue in the present application filed by the award-debtor is whether the Award would automatically include interest and would, in turn, have a bearing on the conditions which may be imposed for grant of stay of the Award under section 36 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The Arbitral Award in the present case is dated 19th May, 2016. The parties to the Award have filed three separate applications including under section 34 of the Act for setting aside of the Award, which are pending before this court. The respondent no. 1 has also filed an Execution Case which is pending as on date.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 is already secured and hence there is no further requirement on the petitioner to provide for security for stay of the Award. The petitioner also resists the prayer of the first respondent to permit encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner unless the first respondent is directed to furnish counter guarantees.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Award is for an amount of Rs. 12,90,52,379/- carrying an interest of 18% per annum from the date of Award till realization. According to counsel, the Arbitrator did not allow pre-award interest and counsel further submits that post-award interest also does not form part of the Arbitral Award. Counsel refers to an order dated 21st March, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court and that of a Division Bench dated 25th September, 2012 by which the petitioner, being the appellant before the Division Bench, was directed to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 6.5 crores as security and keep the same renewed. Counsel submits that the petitioner furnished such bank guarantee and has been renewing the same from time to time. Counsel also refers to an order passed by a learned Single Judge on 12th October, 2018 in an Execution Petition filed by the first respondent, by which the respondent no. 2 (Future Enterprises) was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 5.5 crores with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. Counsel submits that the said bank guarantee was deposited by the respondent no. 2 and has also been renewed from time to time. Counsel urges that an amount of Rs. 12 crores out of the awarded sum of Rs. 12,90,52,379/- (being the principal amount) is therefore already secured in the form of bank guarantees by the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. The thrust of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire awarded sum need not be secured while granting a stay of operation of the award under section 36(2) of the Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioner is required to pay Rs. 12,90,52,379/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the Award which translates to Rs. 26,53,74,118/- as on 1st April, 2022. Counsel relies on section 31(7) of the Act for urging that an arbitral award includes interest. Counsel also relies on decisions to contend that expeditious disposal of arbitral process and enforcement of the award is an essential aspect of the Amendment Act of 2015. Counsel relies on Order XLI Rule 5 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to urge that execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed inasmuch as satisfaction of money decree does not amount to irreparable injury. Counsel also relies on decisions to submit that 100% deposit should be directed and part withdrawal allowed in favour of the respondent no. 1.

6. From the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the controversy in the present application is concerned with whether the petitioner should be called upon to pay security over and above Rs. 12 crores which has already been secured by the petitioner in the form of bank guarantees pursuant to orders of court. According to the petitioner, Rs. 12 crores covers the entire awarded amount of Rs. 12,90,52,379/- and hence there is no requirem