The court recognized its inherent power to permit withdrawal of the amount deposited by the judgment-debtor for stay of execution of the decree and allowed the withdrawal of the entire amount subject to conditions for providing security towards withdrawal.

Harsha Devani, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Nisarg Desai, learned advocate for Nanavati Associates, learned advocates for the respondent, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Having regard to the lengthy arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

3. By this application, the applicant seeks permission to withdraw from the District Court, Bharuch the amount of Rs. 3,06,35,000/- deposited by the respondent herein and interest accrued thereon subject to such terms and conditions that may be deemed fit by this court.

4. The application has been filed in the backdrop of the following facts.

4.1 The applicant - M/s. Manibhai & Brothers is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of construction activities as Civil Works Contractors. The respondent - M/s. Birla Cellulosic had awarded a contract to the applicant for construction of a Weir/Bridge across river Kim. Various disputes arose between the parties in respect of the contract and ultimately, the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai (Retired) who rendered the final award on 18th August, 2002 whereby the respondent herein was directed to pay the applicant an amount of Rs. 2,04,03,021/- with 12% running interest from 1st November, 1998 till payment. The award came to be challenged by the respondent before the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch by filing objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By a judgment and order dated 25th April, 2012, the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch, dismissed the objection application. The respondent carried the matter in appeal before this court being First Appeal No. 3176/2012, which came to be admitted by an order dated 6th August, 2013. The court while admitting the appeal also considered the stay application filed by the respondent and directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum and to furnish a solvent security to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge for the remaining amount. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 3,06,35,000/- which comprises of the principal amount being Rs. 1.10 crores and interest thereon with the District Court. Thereafter, the applicant herein moved an application before the District Court, Bharuch for withdrawal of the amount so deposited by the respondent. The said application filed came to be allowed by an order dated 28th February, 2014 whereby the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Ankleshwar directed that the amount of Rs. 3,06,35,000/- lying with the District Court, in the FDR in the name of Nazir, be paid with accrued interest to the applicant after proper verification. It was further directed that the amount should be paid after production of a bank guarantee of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and solvent security to the satisfaction of the District Judge should also be furnished. It was also ordered that the bank guarantee should be extended till the final disposal of the appeal. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged the aforesaid order before this court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3476/2014. Before this court, the learned counsel for the applicant had sought permission to withdraw the application made before the learned District Judge to enable the applicant to file an application for withdrawal of the amount in the pending first appeal. By a judgment and order dated 28th January, 2015, such permission was granted to the applicant and the writ petition came to be disposed of by observing that once the application (Exhibit-8) is withdrawn, the order impugned before the court would not survive. That the petition has, therefore, become infructuous. It was further observed that the said order shall not operate as a bar to the respondent to move