MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THESE applications (las. 3969/99 and IA. 10309/99) arise from the Award dated 24/03/1993. ( 2 ) THE first application, i. e. , IA. 3969/99 is filed On behalf of respondent No. 1/h. A. L. under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code praying for stay of the operation of the impugnedaward dated 24. 3. 1993. The prayer clauses in the said application read as follows :-a) Stay of operation of the Award dated 24. 3. 99 to the extent that the Awarddirects the Applicant to deliver the aircraft to the plaintiff in flying conditionwithin one week of receipt of payment of Rs. One crore, and levies a penaltyof Rs. 50,000. 00 per day upon the failure of the Applicant to do so within oneweek of receipt of the payment. b) Permit the Applicant to encash the cheque bearing No. 175451 dated01. 4. 1999 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, for the Sum of Rs. One crore,issued by the Plaintiff in favour of the Applicant, pending disposal of theobjections, and further directs the Plaintiff to take possession of the aircraftfrom the Applicant at Kanpur in as is where is condition. " ( 3 ) THE second application (IA. 10309/99) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/jagsoninternational Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as jagson ) under Section 151 CPCseeking directions as to delivery/return of the cheque dated 1. 4. 1999 for Rs. Onecrore by the respondent as petitioner is no more interested/willing to make paymentof Rs. One Crore as the respondent has already defaulted in complying with theaward. The prayer clause in IA. 10309/99 reads as follows:- "i) to direct the the Respondent to deliver/return the cheque dated 1. 4. 1999for Rs, one crore forthwith as the Petitioner is no more intered / willing to makepayment of Rs. One crore as the Respondent has already defaulted incomplying with the Award. "the applicant / H. A. L. s case is as under: ( 4 ) THE aircraft in question was owned by the petitioner-Jagson and on 24. 6. 1991by an agreement the Jagson requested HAL, i. e. , the respondent herein to repair theaircraft to make it airworthy. The HAL repaired the aircraft at the cost of Rs. 1 croreand brought it to Delhi on 2. 12. 1991. There were further repairs required to becarried out and at the request of the Jagson on 16. 12. 6. 1991by an agreement the Jagson requested HAL, i. e. , the respondent herein to repair theaircraft to make it airworthy. The HAL repaired the aircraft at the cost of Rs. 1 croreand brought it to Delhi on 2. 12. 1991. There were further repairs required to becarried out and at the request of the Jagson on 16. 12. 1991, the HAL agreed to carryout these further repairs in order to secure the Certificate of Airworthiness forcommercial flying. This certificate was obtained by the HAL on 6. 3. 1992 for oneyear. However, the bills raised by the HAL for repairing the aircraft and obtaining thecertificate of airworthiness were not paid by Jagson because of the stand taken bythe Jagson that no further repairs were carried out and the sum of Rs. 1. 06 crorespaid earlier by Jagson represented full recompensation for all work done. As HALhad exercised lien in declining to return the aircraft as its dues were not paid, Jagsonhad filed the Suit No. 1776-A/92 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, for referenceof the disputes to the Arbitrator alongwith IA. 3089/92 seeking possession of theaircraft. ( 5 ) ON 4/09/1992 in the said Suit No. 1776-A/92 filed by Jagson, thiscourt had passed the following order: "without going into the question as to what exact amounts payable by thepetitioners to respondent as labour charges and price of the components it isapparent that besides the labour charges, price of the components suppliedby the respondent and the fact that customs) and excise duty and sales tax isalso payable, it would be in the fitness of the things that in case the petitionerfurther pays Rs. 2 crores in account in addition to the amount already paid byit and furni shes bank guarantee for the balance amount, the respondent No. 1 is directed to hand over the aircraft in question to the petitioner. This ishowever, without prejudice to the rights of the parties and without anyexpression of opinion on the merits of the case. " This application stands disposed of accordingly. " ( 6 ) THE above order dated 4/09/1992 was unsuccessfully challenged byfiling a Special Leave Petition in the Hon ble Supreme Court which was dismissedon 15. 3. 93 and thus the order dated 4/09/1992 became final and thereafteron 19. 8. 1993 this Court had appointed an Arbitrator and the present award impugnedin these proceedings arises from the said proceedings. " ( 6 ) THE above order dated 4/09/1992 was unsuccessfully challenged byfiling a Special Leave Petition in the Hon ble Supreme Court which was dismissedon 15. 3. 93 and thus the order dated 4/09/1992 became final and thereafteron 19. 8. 1993 this Court had appointed an Arbitrator and the present award impugnedin these proceedings arises from the said proceedings. HAL further stated that inmarch 1994 Jagson filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Senior Sub Judgewithout disclosing the earlier orders of this Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court andobtained an Order dated 5. 3. 1994 directing the return of the aircraft by the HAL tojagson. However, on 11. 3. 1994 this Court stayed the aforesaid order dated 5. 3. 1994passed by the Senior Sub Judge. Thereafter before the appointed Arbitrator, Jagsonmade an application for return of the aircraft which was rejected by an Order dated23. 1 -1995. The Order of the arbitrator dated 23. 1. 1995 reads as follows: "so far as the interim relief claimed by Jagsons is concerned it is admittedthat they had made similar prayer before the High Court of Delhi and the Highcourt vide its detailed order dated 4/09/1992 directing HAL tohand over the aircraft in question to Jagsons provided they paid a sum of Rs. 2 crores, in account in addition to the amount already paid and furnished abank guarantee for the balance amount. Admittedly, M/s. Jagson filed aspecial Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against this order, whichwas dismissed. High Court was, however, requested to dispose of the mainpetition requesting for reference to arbitration as early as possible. In the presence of these orders the prayer for interim award directing HAL tohand over the aircraft to M/s Jagsons cannot be granted. I also find nojustification for modifying the conditions imposed by the High Court for returnof the aircraft. ( 7 ) HAL has pleaded that the aircraft was fully ready for commercial operations on6. 3. 92 and in spite of numerous opportunities, Jagson chose not to take the aircraftback and consequently the aircraft has not been flown for the last seven years andrequires further extensive maintenance work costing approximately Rs. 2. 5 croresmore and it will in these circumstances take more than four to six months to make itairworthy. 3. 92 and in spite of numerous opportunities, Jagson chose not to take the aircraftback and consequently the aircraft has not been flown for the last seven years andrequires further extensive maintenance work costing approximately Rs. 2. 5 croresmore and it will in these circumstances take more than four to six months to make itairworthy. The HAL s case is that it is Jagson who is fully responsible for the current ( 8 ) THE learned Arbitrator has awarded the sum of Rs. 2. crores to HAL by hisimpugned Award dated 24. 3. 1999. The Arbitrator held the HAL to be entitled forbalance sum of Rs. 1 crore after the payment of Rs. 1 crore already made out by thejagson. The Arbitrator declined the claim of Jagson for compensation and HAL sclaims to interest and the other claims. Consequently the Arbitrator directed asfollows: "i direct that Jagson do pay to HAL within one month the net sum of Rs. I croreand be delivered the air-craft in flying condition within one week of suchpayment. I have reduced the time in view of the fact that with every succeedingday rolling into the fold of time. the utility of the air-craft is being proportionatelyreduced. If Jagson fails to pay the sum of rupees one crore to HAL within one month asdirected, interest at 18 % shall be payable from 1. 6. 1999 till payment ismade. In case HAL fails to make over the aircraft within one week of payment,jagson shall be entitled to recover compensation of rupees fifty, thousandper day. This direction is subject to variation, if any, by the Court. " ( 9 ) PURSUANT to the Award dated 24/03/1999, Jagson sent a cheque of Rs. 1crore on 6. 4. 1999 to HAL signifying its assent to the Award. Jagson has not filed anyobjections to the Award. In the meanwhile the validity of the cheque has expired. ( 10 ) THE petitioner/jagson in reply to IA 39g9 / 99 has submitted that according to thelearned arbitrator the only direction which is subject to variation is the payment ofcompensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 per day and the other directions have not beenpermitted by the arbitrator to be varied and this variation also could only be made atthe time of the final decision and no cause has been shown by HAL for variation ofthis direction at this stage. 50,000. 00 per day and the other directions have not beenpermitted by the arbitrator to be varied and this variation also could only be made atthe time of the final decision and no cause has been shown by HAL for variation ofthis direction at this stage. ( 11 ) THE terms of the operative portion of the Award extracted hereinbefore do notsupport the plea of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Jagson. The arbitrator sobservations regarding the variation by the Court cannot be held confined only to thedirection for payment of the compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 per day. Furthermore evenassuming the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent, in so far as the variationpermitted by the arbitrator is concerned, to correct, the jurisdiction of the Court topass interim orders is not conditioned by the directions given by the Arbitrator. Accordingly this plea of the petitioner Jagson is unsustainable. ( 12 ) A perusal of the facts of the case clearly shows that it is Jagson which largelyresponsible for the delay and the state of affairs obtaining today and at this stage onecannot lose sight of the fact that the Jagson had not only concealed before the Seniorsub the Order passed by this Court on 4. 9. 1992 but also the order of the Hon blesupreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition against the above order -dated 4. 9. 92 on15. 3. 1993. It i5 thus very clear that prima facie Jagson s conduct has not availed ofthe order granting them custody of the aircraft on 4/09/1992 by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court which order in spite of its Unsuccessful challenge beforethe Hon ble Supreme Court was not availed of by Jagson and the aircraft s possessionwas not taken by Jagson by meeting the conditions imposed by the said order dated 4/09/1992. Furthermore on 23. 1. 95 the arbitrator had declined anotherrequest made by Jagson for return of the aircraft. The arbitrator also by his orderdated 23. 1. 1995 refused to vary. the conditions imposed in the order dated 4/09/1992 by this Court. ( 13 ) THE other plea raised by Jagson is that enforcement of one part of the awardand the staying of the other part is not permissible in law and the relief at prayer (b) ofia. 3969/99 for encashment of cheque of Rs. One crore could not be granted. the conditions imposed in the order dated 4/09/1992 by this Court. ( 13 ) THE other plea raised by Jagson is that enforcement of one part of the awardand the staying of the other part is not permissible in law and the relief at prayer (b) ofia. 3969/99 for encashment of cheque of Rs. One crore could not be granted. Sincethe direction to return the aircraft is dependant upon payment of Rs. 1 crore containedin the award, this plea of the petitioner-Jagson is justified and has to be Sustained. Consequently the respondent/h. A. L. s prayer for encashment of the cheque for Rs. 1crore cannot be granted at this stage. Furthermore pending the hearing of theobjections to the Award, the applicant/jagson s prayer made in IA. 10309/99 relatingto the return of the cheque dated 1. 4. 1999 issued by the Jagson, i. e. , petitionerherein as well as HAL s prayer for keeping the cheque for Rs. 1 crore alive andcurrent as it was expiring cannot be granted at this juncture. These pleas will besubject to the final result of the objections raised against the Award dated 24. 3. 1999. Accordingly the aforesaid pleas raised in las. 3969/99. and 10309/99 will be consideredat the time of the final hearing of the objections. ( 14 ) INSOFAR as respondent No. 1 s prayer made in IA. 3969/99 for staying operationof the Award 24. 3. 1999 to the extent that it directs the applicant to deliver the aircraftin the flying condition is concerned, I am satisfied that HAL has made out a case forsuspension of the penalty of Rs. 50,0007- per day levied by the Award dated 24. 3. 1999. It is dear that the levy of a penalty of Rs. 50. 000. 00 per day pending the considerationof the objections would serve no useful purpose and one has to consider thepossibility of success/failure of the objections particularly when the Award directs theapplicant/hal to deliver the aircraft in flying condition within one week of the paymentof Rs. 1 crore. Furthermore as already noticed in this judgement the order dated 4/09/1992 permitting return of the aircraft to Jagson was not availed of bypetitioner-Jagson. I have alredy held that prayer (b) of the respondent\applicant- H. A. L. for encashing the cheque of Rs. 1 crore, made in the present application, i. e. ,ia. 3969/99 cannot be granted. Significantly payment of the amount of Rs. I have alredy held that prayer (b) of the respondent\applicant- H. A. L. for encashing the cheque of Rs. 1 crore, made in the present application, i. e. ,ia. 3969/99 cannot be granted. Significantly payment of the amount of Rs. 1 crore isthe premise on which the direction to return the aircraft to Jagson is founded. I havealready held that the prayer for keeping the cheque alive cannot be granted at thisstage. Since the encashment of Rs. 1 crore as prayed for in prayer (b) is not beinggranted the consequent return of the aircraft and upon failure to return damages ofrs. 50. 000. 00 per day obviously cannot be sustained at this Court dated 4/09/1992 postulated a payment of Rs. 2 crore in addition to the amount already paid byjagson plus bank guarantees. If this was the interim order on 4/09/1992the amount cannot at this stage certainly be lower in the year 2000 when according tothe respondent passage of 7 years more would entail further extensive expenditure tomake the stationary aircraft airworthy. In the circumstances of the case it would bejust and proper that the Award dated 24/03/1999 is stayed pending the hearingof the objections as an interim measure to the extent it directs the HAL/applicant tohandover the aircraft to the petitioner/jagson in flying condition within one week ofreceipt of payment of Rs. one crore. The further direction of payment of Rs. 50. 000. 00per day will also consequently remain stayed until objections to the award are heard. It will be, however, open to the JAGSON to take the delivery of the aircraft on as iswhere is basis and have it repaired at its own expense and submit a bill of repairs inthis Court. The outcome of final orders on the direction of penalty of Rs. 50. 000. 00 perday and the restitution, if any, to be made to the petitioner/jagson for expensesincurred in making the aircraft airworthy as of today, shall be considered at the time offinal hearing of the Objections and will be subject to the result of these Objections.