Point of Law : Since the award was a money decree there should be 100% deposit with respondent being entitled to withdraw amount deposited and furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of High Court. It is relevant to take note of that Bombay High Court had ordered 60% deposit pending Appeal under Section 37 of Act of 1996.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K.S Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Misc (Arb) Case No.49/2021 whereby the Court of the Additional District Judge FTC No.3, Kamrup (M) Guwahati have stayed the operation of the award dated 28.01.2020 till disposal of Misc (Arb) Case No.49/2021.

3. From a perusal of the award dated 28.01.2020, it appears that the learned Arbitrator had awarded an amount of Rs.11,76,322.29 in respect to Claim No.1; Rs.50,000/-in respect to Claim No.2; Rs. 16,39,511/-in respect to Claim No.3; Rs.34,72,174.89 in respect to Claim No.5 i.e., in total Rs.63,38,008.18 p. Apart from that, the learned Arbitrator have awarded interest @ 7% p.a. in respect to the sum awarded against claim No.1, 2, 3 and 5 from the date of the final claim dated 05.04.2014 till the date of the award and further cost of Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost. Further to that, in terms with Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act of 1996), the learned arbitrator had awarded interest @ 2% higher than the current rate of interest prevailing on the date of the award in respect to the claim No.1, 2, 3 & 5 from the date of the award till the date of the payment. Additionally, the learned Arbitrator further awarded that an amount of Rs.5,45,042/- which was paid by the Petitioner as claimant to the Arbitrator and Secretary respectively be paid back to the Petitioner along with interest @7% from the date of the award till the payment and the same to be treated as the part of the award.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the said award dated 28.01.2020 the respondents herein filed an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the Award dated 28.01.2020 in Arbitration Reference Case 02/2018. Along with the said application, an application was filed under Section 36(2) of the Act of 1996 for stay of the arbitral award till disposal of the Section 34 proceedings. The said application under section 34 was registered as Misc (Arb) Case No.49/2021 and the petition under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was separately numbered as Pet No.1217/2021.

5. The Court of the Additional District Judge, FTC, No.3 Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati vide the order dated 16.12.2021 had admitted the said application under Section 34 for hearing and issued notice upon the respondent. In the separately registered application being Pet No.1217/2021, the said Court without assigning any reasons and just on the ground to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, stayed the operation of the award dated 28.01.2020 till the disposal of the arbitration application. It is against this order dated 16.12.2021 that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record.

7. Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as stands today was brought into effect w.e.f. 23/10/2015. The said section 36 is quoted herein below :

“36. (1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court.

(2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purpose.

(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the