Bombay High Court
Central Bank Of India vs Mphasis Limited on 4 December, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-OS:23498
bipin prithiani
1
21-ial-29932.25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 29932 OF 2025
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 27451 OF 2025
Central Bank of India ... Applicant
Versus
Mphasis Limited ... Respondent
******
Mrs. Rathina Maravarman a/w Ms. Sarita Dlima for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shrinivas Deshmukh (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Jeyhaan Carnac
and Mr. Aaron Kevin Fernandes i/by Mulla & Mulla & Craigie,
Blunt & Caroe for Respondent.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 4th DECEMBER 2025
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the applicant (petitioner).
2. By this application, the applicant seeks stay of the impugned arbitral award dated 9th May 2025 passed by the learned arbitrator. In terms of the said award, the applicant is required to pay specific amount along with interest to the respondent, apart from payment of costs as specified in the award.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to certain portions of the award and contended that the award suffers from errors, in as much as the clauses of the contract have not been appreciated and that the relief given to the respondent virtually amounts to granting relief to a party that has itself defaulted. It is ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:20:50 ::: bipin prithiani 2 21-ial-29932.25.doc further submitted that certain invoices were not even placed on record before the learned arbitrator and yet, relief is granted in the context of such invoices, indicating further error committed by the learned arbitrator. It is submitted that since the applicant is a bank, it is not as if the applicant would be running away and it would always be available for satisfying the award in the event the petition is dismissed.
4. It is further submitted that in such circumstances, this Court may consider imposing reasonable conditions, if any, for granting stay of the impugned arbitral award, during the pendency of the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the contents of the reply affidavit filed in the present application. He submits that the learned arbitrator has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and relief has been granted only in respect of invoices, which were found to be within limitation, while others have been excluded. It is submitted that the terms of the contract have been correctly interpreted and there is no question of granting unconditional stay to the impugned arbitral award, as it effectively amounts to money decree. In paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit, it is elaborated as to the amount that would have to be deposited along with interest in terms of the arbitral award.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the operative portion of the award clearly shows that it is nothing but a money decree. The claim of the respondent with regard to ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:20:50 ::: bipin prithiani 3 21-ial-29932.25.doc certain amounts in the context of services provided to the bank, has been partly allowed. The learned arbitrator has considered the material on record, particularly the terms of the contract executed between the parties. A perusal of the same shows that this cannot be, prima facie, said to be a case where the learned arbitrator was either ignorant of the terms of the contract or that the award re- wrote any of the clauses of the contract.
7. As to whether the interpretation placed on the clauses of the contract in the impugned arbitral award is correct or not, would be a matter for arguments and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant cannot be said to have made out a case for unconditional stay.
8. It is to be noted that in the impugned arbitral award, the learned arbitrator excluded invoices that were found to be hit by the limitation and relief was granted only in respect of the invoices which were within limitation. Specific reference was made to the defences raised by the applicant and each defence was dealt with by the learned arbitrator.
9. In such a situation, this Court is not convinced with that unconditional stay of the impugned award can be granted. The same being a money decree, as per the settled law, if the applicant (petitioner) is pressing for stay of execution of the arbitral award, such relief can be granted only upon the applicant depositing the entire awarded amount along with costs in this Court within a specific period of time.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:20:50 :::bipin prithiani 4 21-ial-29932.25.doc
10. In view of the above, the application is disposed of by directing that there shall be stay to the execution of the impugned arbitral award, subject to the applicant (petitioner) depositing the entire awarded amount as per the arbitral award with interest, including costs, in this Court, within a period of six weeks from today.
11. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted. The failure on the part of the applicant to deposit the amount within the stipulated period of time, would lead to the interim stay being vacated without reference to Court.
12. The application stands disposed of.
MANISH PITALE, J.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:20:50 :::