$~45 & 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 126/2021 M/S RAMACIVIL INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Ms. Ritika Kaushik, Mr. Rhythem Nagpal and Mr. Jatin Arora, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Judgment Debtor Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr.

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advs.

+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 9/2021 SAPTRISHI BUILDERS PVT LTD .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty and Mr.

Shubham Dhyani, Advocates.

versus VEG SANCHAR VIHAR CGHS LTD .....Judgment Debtor Through: Mr. V.V. Gautam and Ms. Nitu Barik, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

% 16.07.2024 OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 126/2021

1. Arbitral proceedings between the petitioner and respondent

culminated in an award dated 28 January 2016. Under the said award, the respondent-Union of India was required to pay the petitioner Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd, an amount of ₹ 2,99,55,403/- along with simple interest @ 11 % per annum from 29 January 2016 till the date of payment. It is one facet of this entitlement to interest

which forms subject matter of controversy.

2. The award was challenged by the respondent-UOI before this court by way of OMP (Comm) 516/2016. The successful petitioner, on the other hand, moved the present OMP (Enf) (Comm) 126/2021 for enforcement of the award.

3. The respondent filed, along with OMP (Comm) 516/2016, IA 5809/2016 under Section 36, 136. Enforcement.– of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996², seeking stay of operation of the arbitral award. By order dated 11 August 2021, this Court granted stay of execution of the award (1) WherethetimeformakinganapplicationtosetasidethearbitralawardunderSection34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it wereadecreeofthecourt.

(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, unlessthecourtgrantsanorderofstayoftheoperationofthesaidarbitralawardinaccordancewith theprovisionsofsub-section(3),onaseparateapplicationmadeforthatpurpose.

(3) Uponfilingofanapplicationundersub-section(2)forstayoftheoperationofthearbitral award,thecourtmay,subjecttosuchconditionsasitmaydeemfit,grantstayoftheoperationof suchawardforreasonstoberecordedinwriting:

Provided that the court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the caseofanarbitralawardforpaymentofmoney,havedueregardtotheprovisionsforgrantofstay ofamoneydecreeundertheprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908:

Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that,—

(a) thearbitrationagreementorcontractwhichisthebasisoftheaward;or (b) themakingoftheaward, was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposalofthechallengeunderSection34totheaward.

Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the above proviso shall apply to all court cases arising out of or in relation to arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whetherthearbitralorcourtproceedingswerecommencedpriortoorafterthecommencementof theArbitrationandConciliation(Amendment)Act,2015.

2“the1996Act”hereinafter

subject to the respondent depositing the awarded amount, including interest till that date, with the Registrar General of this Court, within eight weeks. The deposit, as directed, was made by the respondent.

4. The petitioner subsequently filed IA 13756/2021 in OMP (Comm) 516/2016 for permission to withdraw the aforesaid amount deposited by the respondent. Before this Court, the petitioner offered to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount equivalent to the deposited amount. In that view of the matter, the prayer for release of the amount was allowed by this Court on 6 May 2022 in the following terms:

“2. By way of t