Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 36 of arbitration in Sikkim Power Development Corporation ... vs M/S Amalgamated Transpower(India) Ltd on 7 October, 2021Matching Fragments
(ii) While walking this Court through the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act of 1996, as amended in 2015, it was contended that in view of the said provisions of the 2015 amendment and the ratiocinations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court supra, it is now mandatory that the entire awarded amount be deposited prior to grant of Stay by the Court. It was further urged that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the Order of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Manish vs. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation3 which had directed deposit of (2018) 6 SCC 287 2019 SCC OnLine 1520 SLP(C) No(s).11760-11761/2018 dated 16.07.2018 and 26.09.2018 Sikkim Power Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
5.(i) The rival submissions having been heard in extenso, it may appropriately be mentioned that the Stay granted vide Order, dated 22.06.2020, was an ex parte ad interim relief and hence the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.09.2021. While considering the requirements of the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act and Order XLI Rules 5 and 6 of the CPC, it is apposite to notice that in Manish vs. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while disagreeing with the decision of the Bombay High Court which had ordered 60% deposit, pending the Section 37 Appeal, observed inter alia as follows;
vs. M/s Amalgamated Transpower (India) Ltd.
invocation of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of the CPC by the High Court for the grant of the unconditional Stay to Government with respect to Arbitral Award passed against it was not proper. It was held inter alia thus;
"28. Section 36 of the Arbitration Act also does not provide for any special treatment to the Government while dealing with grant of stay in an application under proceedings of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Keeping the aforesaid in consideration and also the provisions of Section 18 providing for equal treatment of parties, it would, in our view, make it clear that there is no exceptional treatment to be given to the Government while considering the application for stay under Section 36 filed by the Government in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
30. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court granting unconditional stay of the arbitration award dated 21-1-2010, cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. ...................................."
(iii) In Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra), Section 34 Applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were all filed prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act w.e.f. 23.10.2015. In the four Appeals, the Section 34 Applications were filed after the Amendment Act came into force. The Court went into a detailed discussion about the pre- amended Section 36 and amended Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. The 246th Law Commission Report which led to the Amendment Act was also discussed in the ratio, wherein the reason for proposing to replace Section 36 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 was considered and it was observed therein that the unamended Section 36 of the Act made it clear that an Arbitral Award became enforceable as a Decree only after the time for filing a Petition Sikkim Power Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.