Arun B. Saharya, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 Arosan Enterprise, Ltd. praying that the order of stay dated 6th of October 1993 bevacated,and that the non-applicant Appellant Food Corporation of India (FCI) be directed to pay to it the decretal amount on furnishing a bank guarantee for restitution. ( 2 ) AROSAN is aforeign company. It entered into a contract with respondent No. 2 Union of India and itscm. 1081/94 in FAO (OS) 196/93 assignee FCI for supply of sugar. It furnished a bank guarantee of the State Bank of India (Canada) in the sum of US $29,28,000. 00 for fulfilment of the contract. FCI cancelled the contract, invoked the bank guarantee, and appropriated the sum of US $29,28,000. 00. This led to disputes between the parties, which were referred to arbitration. ( 3 ) THE arbitrators made an award dated 18th of August 1992 in favour of Arosan, holding that FCI was in breach, and that cancellation of the contract and encashment of the bank guarantee was unlawful. The arbitrators directed refund of the amount of US $29,28,000. 00 to Arosan. ( 4 ) THE Union of India and the FCI challenged the award on various grounds. Arosan also filed objections and sought modification of the award on two counts. The first objection was to the option given by the arbitrators to FCI and Union of India to pay the amount in Indian currency. The second objection was taken on account of interest not being allowed on the awarded amount. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed on behalf of Union of India and FCI,orderedmodification of the award on both counts urged onbehalf of Arosan, and directed payment of the awarded amount to Arosan in US Dollars with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed on behalf of Union of India and FCI,orderedmodification of the award on both counts urged onbehalf of Arosan, and directed payment of the awarded amount to Arosan in US Dollars with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum. ( 6 ) IN appeal, FCI has challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge on various grounds, and has raised, inter alia, questions regarding the date of delivery of goods, the refixation thereof, the alleged default on the part of Arosan to deliver the goods as per terms of the contract, the principles regulating appropriation of goods in cases of supply of afloat cargo in a CIF contract, the interpretation and effect of the provisions of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit of International Chamber of Commerce, in the context of the Letter of Credit and the various communications exchanged between the parties. ( 7 ) BY the order dated 6th of October 1993, the first appeal was admitted and the appeal was directed to be listed on 30th of November 1993 for hearing. On the stay application filed by FCI, being CM. 2159/93, the order that was passed reads thus: "operation of the order of the Single Judge is stayed". This is the order which is sought to be vacated. ( 8 ) IN the present application, it is pleaded that the stay order was made in view of the fact that the main appeal was directed to be heard on 30th of November 1993 as No. 1, subject to overnight part-heard. On 30th of November 1993, however,the list was "quite loaded" and in view of the prevailing position, there appears to be little chance of the appeal being heard within a short time. It is asserted that there ought not to be stay of money decree, that the State Bank of India, Canada, after it paid the guaranteed amount to the appellant, has treated the same as a loan, that the applicant has been paying enormous amount of monthly interest, and that the Bank has even threatened the applicant with sale of its securities in the event that the loan is not clearned at the earliest. Further, it is urged that the State Bank of India, Canada has now agreed to give a bank guarantee to the Court that if the decretal amount is paid to the applicant and the appeal is decided against it, the bank will undertake to pay to the appellant the amount under the decree. Acopy of the letter of the said bank dated 2nd of March 1994, alongwith the format of the proposed bank guarantee is annexed. ( 9 ) FCI has opposed the application. In reply, it is stated that the stay order was passed after hearing both sides and there is no case made out for vacating the stay. It is stressed that FCI is a public sector corporation, the applicant is a foreign company, the bank guarantee offered by the applicant is by a foreign bank, the constitution of which is not known to the FCI, and, therefore, if the money is paid to the applicant, in the event of success in the appeal, FCI would not be able to recover the same, resulting in a huge loss to the public exchequer. ( 10 ) IN the rejoinder filed on behalf of Arosan, it is stated that the bank guarantee now offered for restitution is being given by the very same bank who had furnished the original guarantee under the contract, which was accepted and acted upon by the parties. It is also stated that the State Bank of India, Canada, who has offered the guarantee, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Bank of India and the State Bank of India has the ultimate responsibility of all its operations. Further, it is pleaded that if the guarantee by a local branch of the State Bank of India is required, the same can be furnished but it would cost an additional commission of 0. 9% per annum, which would mean an additional expenditure of US $36,000. 00 perannum, and that it would be unreasonable to burden the applicant with this additional liability, particularly when the applicant is merely seeking restitution of the sum of US $29,28,000. 00 unlawfully recovered by FCI. ( 11 ) THE appeal raises substantial questions of law. A proper appreciation of the documents and evidence on record will take quite some time. 00 perannum, and that it would be unreasonable to burden the applicant with this additional liability, particularly when the applicant is merely seeking restitution of the sum of US $29,28,000. 00 unlawfully recovered by FCI. ( 11 ) THE appeal raises substantial questions of law. A proper appreciation of the documents and evidence on record will take quite some time. In the given circumstances, with the existing work load and depleted strength of Judges, the Court is really unable to find sufficient time to take up the appeal for final disposal at this stage. ( 12 ) IT is true that the award, as modified, and made rule of the Court by the learned Single Judge, is in essence of a money decree. The operation of a money decree would be stayed only for sufficient cause. This is a fundamental principle postulated in Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. But, we have also to keep in mind the fact that Arosan is a foreign company. If the huge amount involved in this case is to be paid to it during pendency of theappeal, sufficient provision must be made for securing restitution. It must also be ensured that in the event of the appeal being allowed,restitution should be possible without obstruction ordelay. Section 145cpc offers a satisfactory solution. It provides that where any person has given a guarantee for restitution,thedecreemaybe executed in the usual prescribed mnner against such person,. who shall be deemed to be a party, within the ambit of Section 47 of the Code. In other words, the decree may be executed and restitution enforced directly against the person who may give a guarantee for that purpose, in the execution proceedings itself, without resort to a separate suit or other action for the enforcement of the guarantee. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, instead of going into the controversy. regarding the constitution of the State Bank of India, Canada, whose guarane has been offered by Arosan, it would be fair and just if the applicant furnishes a guarantee for restitution by a branch of the State Bank of India within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. This would eliminate the apprehension of restitution being obstructed or delayed,and would adequatcly safeguard the interest of the public exchequer, in the event of the appeal being allowed. This would eliminate the apprehension of restitution being obstructed or delayed,and would adequatcly safeguard the interest of the public exchequer, in the event of the appeal being allowed. ( 14 ) INDEED, Arosan has made it clear in its rejoinder: "if the guarantee by a local branch of State Bank of India is required, the same can be furnished but it would cost an additional commission of 0. 9% per annum". Learned counsel appearing for the applicant is right in contending that provision should be made to compensate his client for the additional cost that he might have to incur for that purpose. Interests of justice shall be met, in our opinion, if the additional cost of 0. 9% per annum involved in furnishing the guarantee by a local branch of the State Bank of India is taxed as costs in the cause. ( 15 ) ANXIETY was expressed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of FCI to cover the amount of interest that would accrue from the date of payment to the applicant till restitution under the guarantee. The form of the bank guarantee annexed with the application contains a stipulation in Clause 3 which takes full care of this aspect as well. It covers "amount of US$2,928,000. 00 or the amount paid by FCI together with interest the reon at the Lond on Interbank offered rate computed at half-yearly intervals till the actual date of payment as may beordered by the Delhi High Court while finally deciding the appeal being FAO (OS)No. 196of 1993, by way of interest on account of the principal utilising the monies till the refund of the same, to the appellant or to the Registrar of the Delhi High Court, New Delhi as and when directed and called upon to do so, in the Delhi High Court, or pay to appellants if the Court so directs, as and when so ordered without any objection whatsoever". ( 16 ) WITH a view to avoid any doubt, we direct that the bank guarantee that may be furnished by Arosan shall expressly provide for restitution of moneys with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment till the refund of the same, in the event of the appeal being allowed. ( 16 ) WITH a view to avoid any doubt, we direct that the bank guarantee that may be furnished by Arosan shall expressly provide for restitution of moneys with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment till the refund of the same, in the event of the appeal being allowed. ( 17 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we direct FCI to pay to Arosan the awarded amount in terms of the decree, within two weeks of the latter furnishing, to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court, a guarantee for restitution by a localbranch of the State Bank of India. Interim order dated 6th of October 1993 is, accordingly, varied. ( 18 ) THE application is allowed in the above terms. No costs.