Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) In this application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016 (in short "the Act of 1996"), the petitioner Union of India, represented through the General Manager, Eastern Railway has prayed for stay of operation of the award dated August 08, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award") made by an arbitrator. By the impugned award the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 16,10,750/- to the claimant, the respondent herein. The impugned award further directs the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,90,100/- to the respondent together with interest upon award at the rate of 8%, per annum till realisation.
(2.) According to Ms. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing in support of this application that in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act of 1996 the petitioner Union of India has filed this application for stay of operation of the impugned award and in view of the provisions of Rules (8A) and (8B) of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") it is exempted from furnishing any security under Rules 5 and 6 of Order XL1 of the Code for stay of operation of any money decree. Consequently, the Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Act of 1996 is not applicable to the petitioner who is entitled to obtain unconditional stay of operation of the impugned award.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Priyankar Saha, learned advocate appearing for the claimant award holder, the respondent herein strongly opposed the contention of the petitioner Union of India that it is entitled to obtain unconditional stay of operation of the impugned award without furnishing any security. Relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India-vs.- Amitava Pal,2015 AIR(Cal) 189, Mr. Saha submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Rule (8-A) of Order XXVII of the Code, even if the petitioner Union of India is exempted from furnishing security under Rules 5 and 6 of Order XL1 of the Code but, in order to obtain unconditional stay of operation of the impugned award the petitioner has to fulfil the stipulations in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order XL1. It was contended that in order to obtain unconditional stay of execution of the impugned award the petitioner has to satisfy - (a) that substantial loss may result to it unless the order directing the stay of execution is made; and (b) that the petitioner has made this application without unreasonable delay. It was argued when the present respondent has already filed an application for execution of the impugned award and thereafter, the petitioner filed this application it cannot be said that the petitioner has filed the application without unreasonable delay. It was further submitted by the respondent that in the application the petitioner has not alleged that unless the order for stay of operation of the impugned award is passed, any substantial loss will be caused to itself. In support of its contention that as a condition for obtaining stay of operation of the arbitral award, the petitioner has to secure the entire awarded amount learned counsel appearing for the respondent also relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Commissioner Health, Directorate of Health Services vs.- M/s. Nitapol Industries, 2018 AIR(Cal) 54.;