Back
AVNEESH JHINGAN
Haryana State Roads & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
PNC Infratech Limited – Respondent
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This revision petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 31.3.2023 whereby the petitioners were granted stay subject to deposit of 100% awarded amount in the form of an FDR in the name of the court.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners allotted tender to respondent No. 1 for construction of a road. The terms and conditions provided for dispute resolution through arbitration, the proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1 culminated in award dated 3.2.2019. The objections filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') are pending. On an application filed under Section 36 of the Act, the stay was granted subject to deposit of awarded amount in Court, in the shape of FDR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court concerned erred in directing 100% deposit of the awarded amount as objections under Section 34 of the Act are pending.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 36 of the Act:-
An exceptional case must be made out for a stay of execution of a money decree.
Automatic suspension of execution of the award, the moment an application challenging the said award is filed under section 34 of Act leaving no discretion in court to put parties on terms, in court ....
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 Cou....
The power to grant unconditional stay of an arbitral award is not unfettered and is subject to conditions, including the condition of securing the award by deposit in Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is a requirement for depositing 100% of the awarded amount for the grant of stay, and the Co....
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration proceedings and the need to make a prima facie case for granting a stay of execution of the arbitration award.
The court ruled that allegations of fraud must be considered at the interim stage under Section 36(3), ensuring that the provision is not rendered ineffective.
The pendency of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not automatically result in a stay of the arbitral award, and the award can be enforced like a decree of court....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unamended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not provide for automatic stay of the award pending the application unde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
