Debangsu Basak,J. - (1.) The petitioner has applied under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for stay of operation of the award dated June 22, 2020 as modified on August 14, 2020.
(2.) The respondent has waived its right to use any affidavit dealing with the allegations made in the petition. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has invited the Court to dispose the application on the basis of the materials made available on record.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has referred to the provisions of Section 36(3) of the Act of 1996 and Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He has contended that, the Court has no discretion but to direct the petitioner to furnish security on the full arbitral award. He has submitted that, the Court however has a discretion so far as the quality of the security that may be directed to be furnished in the sense that, the Court may direct furnishing security by cash or by any other means. However, according to him, the entirety of the awarded amount should be directed to be secured. In support of such contentions, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has relied upon the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, (Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited v. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.,2018 SCCOnlineCal 10225), an order dated September 14, 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited v. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd. , order dated July 16, 2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation and (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee,2020 SCCOnlineCal 1666).;