JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner seeks review of a Judgment and order passed by this Court on 28.4.2022 on the grounds contained in the Memorandum of Review. The impugned judgment directed stay of the operation of an arbitral award dated 19.5.2016 upon the petitioner depositing the amount directed by the court being Rs. 5,08,80,941/-by way of a bank guarantee and an equal amount in cash with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court within four weeks from the date of the judgment. It was further directed that the respondent no. 1 award-holder would be free to take appropriate steps in the execution proceedings on the petitioner defaulting in complying with the directions contained in the judgment.

2. The said judgment and order was passed in an application filed by the petitioner on the question whether the amount of the award would include the interest component and 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.

3. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment on the ground that the order passed by this Court ought to be revisited under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act which, according to the applicant, does not stipulate that post-award interest should be considered as a part of the awarded sum. The petitioner also seeks review on the ground of a Coordinate Bench in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata vs. ABG Kolkata Container Terminal Private Limited; 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 4009. The petitioner contends that the said judgment is binding on this Court. The petitioner hence, through learned counsel appearing on its behalf, urges that the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench for determination of the issue of post-award interest.

4. It is also the contention of counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order contains patent errors apparent on the face of the record for review of the same.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 (award-holder) submits that the petitioner is attempting to re-open a concluded issue which is not permissible in an application of the present nature. Counsel disputes the stand of the petitioner in seeking review of the judgment and submits that the application has been filed only to delay the furnishing of security in terms of the direction passed by this Court in the judgment under review. It is also urged that the review application would entail elaborate arguments on behalf of the parties. Counsel submits that the review petition is in effect an appeal in disguise.

6. The primary controversy in the present application for review appears to be the decision in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata vs. ABG Kolkata Container Terminal Private Limited not being followed by the Court in the impugned judgment dated 28.4.2022. This, according to the petitioner, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record drawing the matter within the fold of Order XLVII of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On perusing the judgment passed in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata vs. ABG Kolkata Container Terminal Private Limited, it is found that the learned Single Judge did not pronounce a decision on whether post-award interest is not permissible under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act. The learned Judge only expressed a view, in the nature of an obiter dicta, that post-award interest being a variable amount cannot be taken to be a “sum” included in the award. In any event, ABG Kolkata Container did not consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited vs. Governor, State of Orissa; (2015) 2 SCC 189 which was pronounced prior to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In Hyder Consulting, while interpreting Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act, the Supreme Court held that the interest component loses the character of “interest” and takes the colour of “sum”. The Supreme Court also held that post-award interest is for the purpose of furnishin