The amended provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires a separate application for staying the enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court must consider the furnishing of security by the respondent in reaching its decision.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Petitioner-State of Haryana has challenged the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the application filed by the petitioner-State under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') for staying the enforcement of Arbitral award dated 27.11.2018 during pendency of the petition under Section 34 of the Act was dismissed.

2. In brief necessary facts of the present case can be noticed hereasunder.

3. Under Rule 50 of the Cental Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, every motor vehicle is required to be affixed with High Security Registration Plate (hereinafter to be known as 'HSRP'). For implementation of the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner-State invited bids in order to select a vendor for supplying and affixing registration plates in the state of Haryana. Respondent No.1 was second lowest bidder and was granted the assignment as the lowest bidder was rejected due to some default. Respondent No.1 was invited to match the offer of lowest bidder to which respondent No.1 gave its consent to supply the HSRP at the rate, terms and conditions offered by lowest bidder i.e. M/s JKSDD High Security Number Plate (J.V.).

4. Respondent No.1 gave an undertaking to abide by terms and conditions on 17.02.2012. Petitioner issued a letter of intent dated 21.02.2012 and performance security to the tune of Rs.4 crore was deposited by respondent No.1 on 02.03.2012. Concession agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 27.04.2012 and the respondent No.1 was granted concession to implement HSRP project in the State of Haryana for a period of 10 years from the date of signing of the agreement.

5. In the meantime, bids were also invited for HSRP project in National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) by the Government of NCT. Respondent No.1 also submitted its bid and the same was accepted. Letter of acceptance was issued on 02.04.2012. Later on difference arose between the parties in respect of charging more amount for HSRP in the State of Haryana as compared to the charges in NCT of Delhi. Violation of provision was alleged in terms of clause 13.1.3 of the agreement, whereby the firm undertook not to reduce the sale price of HSRP to any other person than the price chargeable under the contract and, if it reduces the price, then the Concessionaire shall notify such reduction to the State Government of the price payable under this agreement and for HSRP supplied after the date of coming into force of such reduction of the rates shall stand reduced to that level.

6. A show cause notice was issued on 03.10.2012 to respondent No.1 which was replied by the respondent Company to the effect that the Concession agreement was signed with the Government of Delhi before it was signed with the Government of Haryana and the same would not apply retrospectively. The stand of respondent No.1 was not accepted and order dated 21.11.2013 was passed by the State of Haryana thereby reducing the price chargeable by respondent No.1 for fixing the registration plate.

7. Respondent No.1 filed petition under Section 9 of the Act. The petition was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh on 09.12.2013. Thereafter FAO No.6281 of 2013 was filed by respondent No.1 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2014. Operative part of the order i.e. para No.4 reads as under:-

"4. The respondent State would immediately appoint Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the arbitration clause and proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal would commence expeditiously. The Arbitral Tribunal to be set up is requested to conclude the arbitral proceedings expeditiously and preferably within 4 months from the date of first motion hearing before the Arbitral Tribunal since the dispute which has arisen between the parties can largely be resolved by interpretation of the concessionaire agreement and materials on record including the comparative chart in t