9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as asserted by the respondent in the written statement. There is no reasoning whatsoever in the impugned interim award in rejecting the respondent's case as made out in the reply opposing the interim award. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 36 shows that the jurisdiction so conferred on the Court is a discretionary jurisdiction. The proviso to Sub-section (3) further makes it implicit that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 Sub-Rule 3 and Rule 5 would become relevant. In exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 5 the Court exercises its discretion and may grant a stay to the execution of a decree if sufficient cause is made out and the party seeking stay satisfies the Court that it will sustain substantial loss and inter-alia sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petition would not amount to stay on the execution of the interim arbitral award, the respondent filed Notice of Motion No. 2039 of 2017 seeking an interim stay on the execution of the interim award. By the impugned order dated 21 December 2017, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said notice of motion thereby granting unconditional stay on the execution of the impugned interim award rendered by the arbitral tribunal. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has filed this appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant in assailing the impugned order submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have ordered deposit of the decretal amount considering the provisions of Section 36 of the Act and more particularly sub-section 3 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the situation was not such that the purported admission can be singled out so as to make an interim award on admission. In supporting this submission, learned Counsel for the respondent has taken us through the written statement as also the impugned Award. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the pleadings of the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal and the impugned interim award. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Having so done, we are not persuaded to accept the contention as urged on behalf of the appellant. At the outset we may observe that when the Court considers an application for stay of the arbitral award for payment of money, no doubt the Court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the facts of the present case. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to an Interim Award in respect of the admitted liability of the respondent, i.e. for a sum of Rs. 47,56,388/-. 6. As to whether the arbitral tribunal could at all have made such an interim award, is a subject matter of consideration in the arbitration petition which already stands admitted by the learned Single Judge. We are also informed that now de hors the interim award, the arbitration proceedings are in progress and the arbitral tribunal would proceed to finally adjudicate the rival claims of the parties. 7. Apart from the above situation, in regard to the controversy in hand, before the arbitral tribunal the respondent in opposing the appellant's prayer for an in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the applicant in the written statement and that the respondents were entitled to explain the alleged admission as made in the written statement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge when it is observed that prima facie the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have rendered a final award after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. 9. As regards the decisions as relied on behalf of the appellant, there cannot be any doubt on the proposition of law as these decisions lay down. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted above, this is not a case where the respondent could be saddled with an order to deposit the amounts under the interim award. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of a decree if sufficient cause is made out and the party seeking stay satisfies the Court that it will sustain substantial loss and inter-alia satisfies the condition as stipulated in sub-Rule 3 of Rule 5. Thus, the under scheme of the provisions of Section 36 read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 5 of the C.P.C., the party opposing grant of a stay cannot assert a proposition that it would be mandatory for the Court to impose a condition for a stay to the execution proceedings. It is for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and exercise its discretion either to grant a stay to the execution of the decree or impose or not impose any other condition, as the Court may deem appropriate. The above position in law has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
