Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shantanu Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.Pancham Surana, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Suvir Sehgal, J.

Instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 06.09.2024, Annexure Pl, passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram whereby while partly accepting an application under Section 36 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), it was directed that the petitioner will deposit the entire decretal amount with the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi with a request that the amount be not disbursed till the final decision of the main petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a memorandum of understanding dated 11.04.2019 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. They submitted a tender for an award of a contract by the U.P. Power Transmission Corporation. An LOI dated 22.02.2020 was awarded in favour of the parties, which was cancelled without executing a contract. A dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to arbitration and by award dated 10.10.2023, Annexure P2, an amount of Rs. 14,44,70,000/- besides interest and cost of arbitration, was passed in favour of the respondent. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act along with an application under Section 36 (3) ibid for stay of the enforcement of the arbitral award. The respondent filed an execution petition before the High Court of Delhi and by order dated 23.01.2024, Annexure P4, the High Court directed the petitioner to maintain status quo in respect of its immovable properties and by subsequent order dated 15.07.2024, Annexure P8, petitioner was directed to deposit the decretal amount with the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks. Learned Senior Counsel states that the application for stay of enforcement of award was contested by the respondent and vide impugned order, Annexure Pl, it has been partly allowed, as noticed above. He asserts that while partly accepting the application, learned Commercial Court has erred in directing the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount with the High Court. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Unibros Versus All India Radio, 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 5231, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the learned Arbitrator has accepted the claim relating to loss of profit in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the claim. Contending that the award is contrary to the public policy of India, he urges that it is likely to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. A reference has also been made by him to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited and others M/s SAR Parivahan Private Limited and others, 2024 SCC On Line Bom 1659. He asserts that as depositing such a huge decretal amount would result in a blockade of funds, impugned order be modified and the petitioner be permitted to furnish an insurance bond or bank guarantee in lieu of the deposit of the decretal amount.

3. On the basis of the advance copy, respondent is represented through a counsel, who has opposed the prayer. He has pointed out that the petitioner had made a similar prayer by filing an application, Annexure PIO, before the High Court of Delhi, which stood rejected vide order dated 23.09.2024, Annexure P9. After having failed before the Delhi High Court, petitioner has chosen to challenge the order, Annexure Pl, by filing the instant petition by not disclosing the developments, which took place before the High Court of Delhi. He has argued that the award passed under the Arbitration Act has to be executed like a money decree and there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram. Reference has been made by him to B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Versus Emaar India Ltd., Law Finder Doc Id # 2280385.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

5. An examination of