JUDGMENT : N.V.ANJARIA, J. What is prayed in this Special Civil Application is to modify the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar - Commercial Court, by directing the respondent herein to deposit 100% of the amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal as per its award dated 20.03.2020. It is prayed to require the respondent to deposit both, principal amount as well as interest and cost. 2. The aforementioned order dated 02.01.2023, below exhibit 5, came to be passed under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thereby, the respondent prayed to stay the operation and implementation of the arbitral award. The proceedings of section 34 of the Act are pending. 2.1 The operative part of the said order, prayed to be modified, is as under, "1. The Operation and Implementation of Arbitral Award (with all the amendments), dated 20/3/2020 (in the matter of M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company v. M/s Guajarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. before Arbitrators), is hereby stayed on the condition that Appellant deposits in the court 50% amount awarded as per para 519 (page 174 to 175-total amount being on page 175) of the Original award of arbitration, dated 20- 03-2020, within 8 (eight) weeks from the-date of this order and also presents Corporate Bank Guarantee of another half amount (50%) of Awarded amount in the court, as mentioned in para 519, within 8 weeks from the date of this order. 2. Nazir is hereby ordered to invest the said amount deposited, in any nationalized bank. 3. The respondent will be free to withdraw any portion of the said amount deposited in the court, which is deemed proper by the court, with the permission of the court. That any application for withdrawal to be preferred in this regard by Respondent may be preferred, but the said application shall be preferred two months after deposit of said amount in court. 4. Until Appellant/applicant deposits the abovesald amount in court and presents in this case Corporate Bank Guarantee within the time specified above, the Operation and implementation of above mentioned Arbitral Award shall stand stayed." 2.2 Paragraph 519 of the Award mentioned in the aforesaid operative portion, related to the principal amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. In the award, interest awarded as per paragraph 523 and the cost part was also subsequently dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal. In the award, interest awarded as per paragraph 523 and the cost part was also subsequently dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2.3 The grievance of the present petitioner centers around the aspect that the Commercial Court below directed deposit of the principal amount only, while granting stay of the arbitral award. 3. The facts to be noted in brief are that respondent Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. invited bids on 15.03.2010 for the purpose of construction of Lignite Thermal Power Plan at Padva, Bhavnagar. It was a contract for piling and general civil work to be executed in the project at Gandhinagar. Letter of award was issued on 01.07.2010 for a total sum of Rs.236.41 crores. Over a period of time, the said sum was increased by the respondent Corporation to Rs.449.34 crores. The petitioner stated that the work, as substantially enhanced above, was completed by it on 30.07.2015 and necessary completion certificate was issued by the respondent. As the respondent refused to pay the claims of the petitioner, the disputes arose. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in the contract. 3.1 The three member Arbitral Tribunal allowed the majority of claims by passing award dated 20.03.2020. The petitioner was found to be entitled to Rs.249,78,31,286/- with interest at the rate of 12 % from 24.03.2017 till realisation. The Arbitral Tribunal thereafter in exercise of powers under section 33 of the Act, modified the award as per order dated 28.07.2020 at the instance of the respondent. The Tribunal recorded that the petitioner's entitlement would be Rs. 233,73,91,405/-, which was less than what was earlier determined. The award was further modified on 04.08.2020. 3.1.1 The award of the Arbitral Tribunal was challenged by the respondent by filing proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by filing Commercial Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 before the District Court. Respondent also filed application under Section 36(2) read with Section 36(3) of the Act for stay on the operation and implementation of the Arbitral Award pending final disposal of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner herein responded to the said application by submitting that the parameters under Section 36 of the Act for granting stay on the arbitral award were not satisfied. The petitioner herein responded to the said application by submitting that the parameters under Section 36 of the Act for granting stay on the arbitral award were not satisfied. It was further stated that if at all the Court was to stay the award, it could only be on condition of requiring the respondent to deposit the total awarded amount. 3.1.2 The Court below passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2023 staying the operation and implementation of the arbitral award on the conditions (a) The Respondent should deposit in the Hon'ble District Court, 50% of the amount awarded as per paragraph 519 (page 174 to 175) of the Original Arbitral Award dated 20.03.2020, (b) The respondent should furnish Corporate Bank Guarantee for another 50% of the awarded amount as mentioned in paragraph 519 of the Original Arbitral Award dated 20.03.2020 (c) The respondent should make the deposit and furnish the Corporate Bank Guarantee within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order. The petitioner was given liberty to withdraw the amount as directed. 3.2 The case of the petitioner is that the total outstanding amount due as on 02.12.2022 under the arbitral award dated 20.03.2020 is Rs.422,82,94,111.84, which comprised of principal sum as well as interest and cost. This amount was certified by the Chartered Accountant. 3.3 Against the aforementioned order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Commercial Court below, Special Leave Petition No. 3379 of 2023 came to be filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court. As stated in the memorandum of petition, in the said Special Leave petition, the petitioner did not contest the grant of stay on the operation and implementation of the arbitral award, but only took exception to the conditions imposed by the court below to make further grievance that the respondent was not required to deposit 100% of the awarded amount inclusive of interest and cost. 3.3.1 During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, on 23.03.2023, before District Court, the respondent Corporation submitted a memo that it would be depositing 50% of the amount as mentioned in paragraph 519 of the amended award dated 20.03.2020, which would come to Rs. 116,86,957,20/- with 50% of the amount as mentioned in paragraph 519 of the amended awarded amount of Rs. 233,73,91,405.79. 116,86,957,20/- with 50% of the amount as mentioned in paragraph 519 of the amended awarded amount of Rs. 233,73,91,405.79. The said memo dated 23.02.2023 of the respondent was dismissed by the Commercial Court on the same day, it was stated. 3.3.2 The Special Leave Petition came to be disposed of by order dated 24.02.2023, which reads as under, "1. Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that, at this stage, the petitioner would wish to pursue appropriate proceedings before the High Court in order to challenge the interim order of the Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar which was passed on an application for stay of the arbitral award. 2. The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue such further remedies as may be available in law including before this Court if aggrieved by the decision of the High Court." 3.4 It was thereafter that the present Special Civil Application came to be filed by the petitioner seeking the prayer as above. 3.5 The issue centres around to the aspect whether while granting stay on the implementation of the arbitral award, while passing order under Section 36 of the Act, the Commercial Court below should have directed the respondent Corporation to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal together with the interest. 4. On behalf of respondents, learned senior advocate Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi assisted by learned advocate Mr. G.H. Virk inter alia raised preliminary objections as regards entertainability of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which may be dealt with at the threshold. It was submitted by pressing into service decisions of the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd. vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation [ (2020) 15 SCC 706 ] as also in Bhaven Construction vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.[( 2022 (1) SCC 75 ] that looking to the nature of the order and the stage at which it is passed, this Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was submitted that though the maintainability of the petition cannot be questioned, its entertainability sill be guided by the well settled principle that in such matters, the Court must be extremely circumspect in extending its interference, it was submitted that nor the order impugned could be said to be patently lacking inherent jurisdiction to warrant interference. 4.1 The issue before the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd.(supra) was in respect of exercisability of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of judgements allowing or dismissing First Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It was held that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against the judgments allowing or dismissing the petitions under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the High Court should be extremely circumspect. 4.1.1 The decision of Deep Industries (supra), was followed by the Supreme Court in Bhaven Constructions (supra), wherein what was challenged was ruling of the arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. It was held in that context that interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution by the High Court with the arbitral process was not permissible. It was reasoned that if the Courts start using its inherent power to interject the arbitral process at a stage such as application under Section 16 of the Act, it would frustrate the purpose of the arbitration which was to ensure the expeditious and time-bound conclusion of the arbitration process. 4.2 The aforementioned judgments were in different context. Furthermore, the order presently under challenge in this Special Civil Application is passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Against order passed under this provision, no appeal is available. The petitioner cannot be left remediless if he is aggrieved by the order. The ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution is broad and pervasive though it is true that the exercise of jurisdiction would be guided by disciplined approach. When no further remedy is available and further having regard to the kind and nature of the order and the issues raised in relation to impugned order, the preliminary objection is overruled. The Court is inclined to entertain the petition to deal with on merits the issue raised. 4.3 Proceeding with to deal with rival submissions on the merits of the impugned order, learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore assisted by learned advocate Mr. The Court is inclined to entertain the petition to deal with on merits the issue raised. 4.3 Proceeding with to deal with rival submissions on the merits of the impugned order, learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta submitted that the Court below failed to act as per the statutory mandate of Section 36 of the Act and that the impugned order stood against the intention of the legislature behind amending section 36 of the Act in the year 2015. It was next submitted that only 50% of the awarded amount has been directed to be deposited while granting stay on the operation of the award. It was submitted that the Court below failed to notice that paragraph 523 of the award provided for interest and the amount of interest along with principal sum was required to be directed to be deposited. 4.4 Affidavit-in-reply was filed by respondent contesting the petition to inter alia submit that the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Commercial Court below is a detailed and reasoned order, that the petitioners solitary objective is to withdraw the amount before final adjudication of proceedings under section 34, which are pending. It was submitted that remedy under section 37 of the Act would be available once the decision is rendered in Section 34 proceedings. It was submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings under section 34, the order dated 02.01.2023 has been passed, which was just and proper wherein the Court has protected the awarded amount for the petitioner. 4.4.1 In addition to the aforesaid contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply, learned senior advocate, by submitting that respondent is a semi-government corporation, in that context, referred to and relied on provisions of Order 27 Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was submitted that under the said provision, it is provided that no security would be required from Government or public officer in certain cases. The provision says that no security as is mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 of Order 41 shall be required from the government or where the government has undertaken the defence of the suit from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity. The provision says that no security as is mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 of Order 41 shall be required from the government or where the government has undertaken the defence of the suit from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity. Taking aid of the said provision, it was harped that it could not be said that the Government is obliged to make deposit of the full decreetal amount while seeking stay of the order or decree requiring payment of money. 4.4.2 Learned senior advocate relied on the observations of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India vs. Amitava Paul [ AIR 2015 Cal 89 ], reproduced by Supreme Court in paragraph 21 from the decision of Supreme Court in PAM Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal [ (2019) 8 SCC 112 ], "21. A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while considering the question as to whether in an appeal preferred by the Government, the Government is entitled to get stay of execution of decree impugned by taking aid of Order XXVII Rule 8A of the CPC, even if the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of subrule (3) of Rule 5 of Order XLI are not complied with, held as follows: (Amitava Paul case, SCC Online Cal : AIR p.98, paras 36-38) “36. In order to resolve the aforesaid controversy, one must examine the legislative intent for incorporating Order 27, Rule 8A in the Code. The aforesaid provision was engrafted to exempt the Government to furnish security as a guarantee for due performance of a decree as mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI. Notwithstanding such exemption, discretionary power of the Court to grant stay of execution of a decree can be exercised in favour of the Appellant Government only if it satisfies the Court as to the existence of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 5(3) of Order XLI. As “substantial loss” to the appellant is a condition precedent to grant stay, execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to irreparable injury to the appellant as the remedy of restitution is available to him in the event the appeal is allowed. As “substantial loss” to the appellant is a condition precedent to grant stay, execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to irreparable injury to the appellant as the remedy of restitution is available to him in the event the appeal is allowed. [See, Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai, 2005 (4) SCC 1 , para 6]. Under such circumstances, when the court chooses to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant State to grant stay of execution of a money decree it must be balance the equities between the parties and ensure that no undue hardship is caused to a decree holder due to stay of execution of such decree. Hence, in appropriate cases, the Court in its discretion may direct deposit of a part of the decretal sum so that the decree holder may with draw the same without prejudice and subject to the result of the appeal. Such direction for deposit of the decretal sum is not for the purpose of furnishing security for due performance of the decree but an equitable measure ensuring part satisfaction of the decree without prejudice to the parties and subject to the result of the appeal as a condition for stay of execution of the decree." 4.4.3 It was sought to be emphasized that when it is the Government, the Court may not require it to deposit the amount, pressing into service para 37 of the Calcutta High Court judgment, "37. To hold that the Court is denuded of such equitable discretion while granting stay of execution of a money decree in favour of the Government, would cause grave hardship to deserving decree holders who in the facts of a given case may be entitled to enjoy part satisfaction of the decree without prejudice and subject to the result of the appeal as a condition for stay of execution of the entire decree. 4.4.4 It was submitted that the Government would exempt from mandatory obligation, "38. 4.4.4 It was submitted that the Government would exempt from mandatory obligation, "38. Hence, it is opined although Order 27, Rule 8A may exempt the appellant Government from the mandatory obligation of furnishing security in terms of Rule 1(3) for seeking stay of execution of a money decree as under Rule 5(5) of Order XLI, the said provision cannot be said to operate as an absolute clog on the discretion of the court to direct the deposit of the decretal amount as a condition for grant of stay of execution of the decree in appropriate cases more particularly when such direction is coupled with the liberty to the decree holder to withdraw a portion thereof in part satisfaction of the decree without prejudice and subject to the result of the appeal.” We find no reason to disagree with such view taken by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court and are thus in agreement with the same." 5. For appreciating the issue involved and the contentions rivally canvassed, relevant statutory provisions may be considered. As already observed, Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC, relied on by the respondent, inter alia provides that no security shall be required from Government or public officer in certain cases. Order 41 Rule 1(1), CPC, deals with the form of appeal, whereas, sub-rule (2) thereof mentions about the contents of the memorandum. 5.1 Sub-rule (3) is important to notice, it provides as under, "(3) Where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit, the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit.” 5.1.1 Order 41 Rule 5 in respect of stay by the appellate court reads as under, "Order 41, Rule 5 Stay by Appellate Court.— (1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree. Explanation.—An order by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution of the decree shall be effective from the date of the communication of such order to the Court of first instance, but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on his personal knowledge, stating that an order for the stay of execution of the decree has been made by the Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt from the Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or any order to the contrary, be acted upon by the Court of first instance. (2) Stay by Court which passed the decree.—Where an application is made for stay of execution of an appealable decree before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing therefrom, the Court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the execution to be stayed. (3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) or subrule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied— (a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. (4) Subject to the provisions of subrule (3), the Court may make an ex parte order for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing subrules, where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in subrule (3) of rule 1, the Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decrees.” 5.1.2 Thus, sub-rule (5) above is specific to provide with non-obstante clause that where the appellate fails to make deposit or furnish the security, specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall not make any order staying the execution of the decree. 5.2 In the amended section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the jurisprudence of the aforesaid provisions, more particularly Order 41 Rule 1(3) read with Order 41 Rule 5(5) could be said to have been extended. Section 36 of the Arbitration Act was amended by Act 3 of 2016 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015. 5.2 In the amended section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the jurisprudence of the aforesaid provisions, more particularly Order 41 Rule 1(3) read with Order 41 Rule 5(5) could be said to have been extended. Section 36 of the Arbitration Act was amended by Act 3 of 2016 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015. Sub-section (3) of section 36, which is reproduced hereinafter, came to be introduced upon the recommendation of the 246th Law Commission Report. 5.2.1 The Law Commission observed, "Automatic stay of enforcement of the award upon admission of challenge 43. Section 36 of the Act makes it clear that an arbitral award becomes enforceable as a decree only after the time for filing a petition under section 34 has expired or after the section 34 petition has been dismissed. In other words, the pendency of a section 34 petition renders an arbitral award unenforceable. The Supreme Court, in National Aluminum Co. Ltd. V. Pressteel & Fabrications, (2004) 1 SCC 540 held that by virtue of section 36, it was impermissible to pass an Order directing the losing party to deposit any part of the award into Court. While this decision was in relation to the powers of the Supreme Court to pass such an order under section 42, the Bombay High Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. The Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai 2014 (1) Arb LR 512 (Bom) applied the same principle to the powers of a Court under section 9 of the Act as well. Admission of a section 34 petition, therefore, virtually paralyzes the process for the winning party/award creditor." 5.2.2 In PAM Developments Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court quoted its own decision in National Aluminum Co. Ltd. V. Pressteel & Fabrications [ (2004) 1 SCC 540 ], which critisized the position in respect of operation of old law under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. “However, we do notice that this automatic suspension of the execution of the award, the moment an application challenging the said award is filed under section 34 of the Act leaving no discretion in the court to put the parties on terms, in our opinion, defeats the very objective of the alternate dispute resolution system to which arbitration belongs. “However, we do notice that this automatic suspension of the execution of the award, the moment an application challenging the said award is filed under section 34 of the Act leaving no discretion in the court to put the parties on terms, in our opinion, defeats the very objective of the alternate dispute resolution system to which arbitration belongs. We do find that there is a recommendation made by the concerned Ministry to the Parliament to amend section 34 with a proposal to empower the civil court to pass suitable interim orders in such cases. In view of the urgency of such amendment, we sincerely hope that necessary steps would be taken by the authorities concerned at the earliest to bring about the required change in law.” (para 11) 5.2.3 It was in the aforesaid light that Section 36 came to be amended and substituted. The old provision read as under, "36. Enforcement.- Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court." 5.2.4 The provision as substituted reads as under, "36. Enforcement--(1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court. (2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3), on a separate application made for that purpose. (3) Upon filing of an application under subsection (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).] [Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a Prima facie case is made out that,-- (a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the basis of the award; or (b) the making of the award, was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under section 34 to the award. Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the above proviso shall apply to all court cases arising out of or in relation to arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether the arbitral or court proceedings were commenced prior to or after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016).” 5.2.5 The above provision deals with the enforcement of the arbitral award. Sub-section (3) states that stay of the operation of the award will have to be subject to condition provided. The proviso says that while considering the application for grant of stay in respect of arbitral award for payment of money, due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of money decree under the provisions of the CPC will have to be given. Thus, the provision of CPC with regard to grant of staying of money decree would apply to the arbitral award providing for payment of money. The arbitral award for payment of money therefore could be said to have been equated with money decree. The stay of the award providing for money payment will have to be on condition on the lines of the provisions of CPC. The only exception is in this proviso where the arbitration agreement or making of the award was found to be induced by fraud or corruption. The stay of the award providing for money payment will have to be on condition on the lines of the provisions of CPC. The only exception is in this proviso where the arbitration agreement or making of the award was found to be induced by fraud or corruption. 5.3 The submission about Order 27, Rule 8A, CPC, made on behalf of the State of West Bengal in the Calcutta High Court judgment that no security shall be required from the Government in case of money decree was negatived by observing thus, "If such submission of the respondent is accepted then the same would mean that mere filing of an objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by a Government shall render the award unenforceable as the stay order would be passed in a mechanical manner and as a matter of course, without imposing any condition against the Government judgment debtor. If the contention is accepted, the effect would be that insofar as the Government is concerned, the unamended provision of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act would automatically come into force." (para 18) 5.3.1 The Supreme Court considered the effect of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act vis-a-vis Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC. It would eminently noticed that the Supreme Court in PAM Development Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after quoting the observations of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court stated that the plain reading of Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC, makes it clear that the same is only regarding security mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 of Order 41, CPC, which may not be demanded from the Government while considering the plea for stay. The Supreme Court however stated 'it, however, does not provide that the decreetal cannot be required to be deposited in the appeal against a money decree'. 5.4 The Apex Court highlighted and emphasised subrule (5) of Rule 5 of Order 41 and further observed that the Court had power to direct to deposit the decreetal amount, that Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC, does not exempt the Government from making deposit. It was noticeably observed that the provision of Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC, was the product of British Raj and would not be applicable in today's time of democratic Government. It was noticeably observed that the provision of Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC, was the product of British Raj and would not be applicable in today's time of democratic Government. Therefore, the reliance placed on behalf of the respondent on Order 27 Rule 8A, CPC, seeking the Court to hold that exemption from depositing the amount fully could be granted to it, falls flat. 5.5 In PAM Development Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court in terms observed that no distinction is made or any differential treatment could be given to the Government while considering its application for grant of stay of money decree in the proceeding under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. "Arbitration proceedings are essentially alternate dispute redressal system meant for early/quick resolution of disputes and in case a money decree award as passed by the Arbitrator against the Government is allowed to be automatically stayed, the very purpose of quick resolution of dispute through arbitration would be defeated as the decree holder would be fully deprived of the fruits of the award on mere filing of objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act is a special Act which provides for quick resolution of disputes between the parties and Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that the parties shall be treated with equality. Once the Act mandates so, there cannot be any special treatment given to the Government as a party. As such, under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, no distinction is made nor any differential treatment is to be given to the Government, while considering an application for grant of stay of a money decree in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. As we have already mentioned above, the reference to CPC in Section 36 of the Arbitration Act is only to guide the Court as to what conditions can be imposed, and the same have to be consistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act." (para 26) 5.5.1 It was observed that even though the provisions in other law may contain provision for separate treatment to the Government in certain cases, the Arbitration Act, which is special Act, enacted for the purpose of quick resolution of disputes, has to be applied in its provisions, so as not to repeat the decree holder from reaping fruits of the award on mere filing of section 34 proceedings. "It may be true that the CPC provides for a differential treatment to the Government in certain cases, but the same may not be so applicable while considering a case against the Government under the Arbitration Act. For instance, Section 80 of CPC provides for a notice of two months to be given before any suit is instituted against the Government. Further, it is also provides that no exparte injunction order can be passed against the Government. Whereas on the other hand, under the Arbitration Act no such special provision has been made with regard to arbitration by or against the Government. There is no requirement under the Arbitration Act for a notice of two months to be given to the Government before invoking arbitration proceeding against the Government. Further, Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration Act also provide for grant of exparte interim orders against the Government." (para 27) 5.5.2 It was reiterated that Government does not deserve any exceptional treatment in the above regard. "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." (para 28) 5.5.3 It was re-emphasised that Rule 8A of Order 27, CPC, has been archaic, "Although we are of the firm view that the archaic Rule 8A of Order XXVII CPC has no application or reference in the present times, we may only add that even if it is assumed that the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 8A of CPC are to be applied, the same would only exempt the Government from furnishing security, whereas under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC, the Court has the power to direct for full or part deposit and/or to furnish security of the decretal amount. Rule 8A only provides exemption from furnishing security, which would not restrict the Court from directing deposit of the awarded amount and part thereof." (para 29) 5.6 The position of law emanating from PAM Development Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is clear and succinct. Analysing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1(3), Order 41 Rule 5(5), CPC, and reading them purposively with the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, it is laid down that wherever the arbitration award is for payment of money, which will partake the money decree, the deposit of the awarded amount in all ordinary circumstances, barring the exceptions of the circumstances, provided in Section 36 itself, has to be a rule, to become condition while granting stay on the operation and implementation of the arbitral award. Merely because the party is Government, the law will not make an exception to operate to require the deposit of the entire awarded amount. 6. Having discussed the position of law as above, the Arbitral award in its operative portion is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference, "519. For the above mentioned reasons, the Tribunal passes the following: Sl No Claims DELAY DAMAGES Amount (INR) 1 Underutilization of Resources during the Contractual Period, Unrecovered Indirect Costs for Extended Stay, Overheads and Loss of Profit earning capacity (Upto June, 2016) 86,22,28,454 2. Reimbursement of CAR Policy 1,54,65,705 3. Reimbursement of Bank Guarantee Renewal Charges 36,36,776 4. Reimbursement of Excise Duty on Cement, Steel and Consumables 8,91,95,930.71 5. Reimbursement of VAT on construction material 2,07,67,828.32 6. Escalation of Rates 48,34,53,001 PAYMENTS FOR VARIATIONS 7. Structural steel works above 41 m 23,75,49,434.15 8. Cleaning for Indian Patent Stone (IPS) 6,43,295 9. Granite Moulding 2,20,455 10 . Binding Wires for Reinforcement Works in Piling 50,44,645 11 Shuttering for TG Deck and Beams 43,61,173 12 DG Set-25 KVA 2,10,000 13 DG Set-125 KVA and 250 KVA 13,79,065 14 Structural steel for Fencing Post 16,21,405.89 15 Structural steel for Permanent Support in Deck Sheets 1,73,475 16 JMR's for Road Levelling 5,15,603 17 Roadworks-Sand Gravel Layering 18,34,737 18 Concreting using Limdi Sand 5,33,41,992 19 Reinforcement Steels over Pile Caps 1,53,03,277.4 20 Boring through Soft/Weathered Rock using TMR machines 89,81,130 21 Discarded Piles 6,94,58,915.16 ERRORS IN CERTIFICATION 22 Mode of Measurement for Structural Steel over 41 mts 46,15,099.48 23 Wrongful deduction of measurements/ items in the certified final bill. 1,55,71,515.70 24 Refund of the Bank Guarantee amount encashed by the Respondent 11,82,10,000 25 Refund of the Retention Money 21,69,92,875.69 BILLS CERTIFIED BUT NOT PAID 26 For Certified RA Bill 59 to 61 4,53,97,176.79 27 For Final Bill 14,21,50,827.66 INTEREST & COSTS 28 Interest on Delayed Payments (Upto 23 March 2017) 7,95,07,493.21 Total 249,78,31,286 520. The Tribunal also rejected the challenge of the Claimant against the deduction of Rs.7,66,665.20 due to non-fixation of wire mesh on steel windows and the deduction of Rs.1,96,270/- due to non-fixation of glasses. 521. The Tribunal has already found that the Claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of Taxes and Labour Cesses, consequently those two claims would stand dismissed. 522. The Tribunal has also found that the Respondent was in breach and therefore none of the Counter Claims raised by the Respondent is sustainable and hence those claims stand dismissed. Interest 523. The Claimant is entitled to interest @12% for the amounts awarded from 24.3.2017 till the date of payment or realization." 6.1 In the award, subsequent paragraphs no. 524 to 527 deals with cost aspect, Costs 524. Both parties have given details of costs incurred by them towards this Arbitration proceedings. The Claimant has succeeded in almost all claims, whereas all Counter-Claims raised by the Respondent have been rejected. 525. The Claimant has filed its statement of accounts vide email dated 17.2.2020 with copies to all. In that, it is stated that an amount of Rs.8,56,049/- is due from the Respondent towards their part of the share for arranging the venue. The Claimant has borne that amount which is not disputed by the Respondent. 526. The Claimant has also filed a statement of fees for conducting the proceedings which is stated to be Rs.2,92,86,245/- which is not disputed by the Respondent. The total amount of costs therefore comes to Rs.3,01,42,294/-, excluding the fees paid to the Arbitrators, which the parties have shared equally. 527. Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view since the Claimant has succeeded substantially in all the claims, under Section 31A 2(a) the unsuccessful party i.e. the Respondent has to bear at least 50% of the costs incurred for conducting the Arbitration case, excluding the Arbitrators' fee, which works out to Rs. 1,50,71,147/-. 527. Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view since the Claimant has succeeded substantially in all the claims, under Section 31A 2(a) the unsuccessful party i.e. the Respondent has to bear at least 50% of the costs incurred for conducting the Arbitration case, excluding the Arbitrators' fee, which works out to Rs. 1,50,71,147/-. The Claimant is, therefore entitled to this amount by way of costs with interest @12% from the date of this Award till payment or realization. 6.2 It could be seen that all paragraphs starting from 519 till end are operative portion. Paragraph 519 in its table indicates the principal sum awarded whereas in para 523, it is provided that the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. The amounts awarded from 24.03.2017 upto 23.03.2017 is included and provided for in paragraph 519 to arrive at total figure of Rs. 249,78,31,286/-. 6.3 The Commercial Court below has directed the deposit of amount as per paragraph 519 of the Arbitral Award, which reflects only the principal amount. There would be no gainsaying that the Arbitral Award providing for payment of money acquires the characteristics of money decree, which sought to be enforced. Furthermore, when the money decree is passed with interest, the interest would be inclusive to count the total decreetal amount. The Arbitral Award when awards certain sum with interest and cost, the interest part and cost part shall become part of the total awarded amount. 6.3.1 Paragraph 523 in terms provides that the claimant is entitled to interest of 12%, which is inclusive and integral part of the award. The arbitral award would consist in the principal amount, interest given and the cost awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. 6.3.2 In the facts of the case, no reason or ground could be spelt out to omit for the respondent, to deposit the interest and cost awarded by the Tribunal. There is no escape for the respondent, in the facts of the case, to deposit the interest and cost part as well if it is to seek stay of the operation of the arbitral award. It is nobodies case that the ground of fraud or corruption exist. No other consideration could weigh for not requiring the deposit of the entire awarded amount as part of condition of stay. It is nobodies case that the ground of fraud or corruption exist. No other consideration could weigh for not requiring the deposit of the entire awarded amount as part of condition of stay. 6.3.3 In that view, the order passed by the Commercial Court below stands in error. It is required to be modified by directing the respondent to deposit the interest and cost as awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal to be necessary condition for operation of the stay of the award. 6.4 The Supreme Court in Manish vs. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation, which was Special Leave to Appeal No. 11760-11761 of 2018, decided by order dated 16.07.2018, passed the order as under, setting aside the order of the Bombay High Court requiring the deposit of the amount to the extent of 100%, “The Bombay High Court has ordered 60% deposit, pending the Section 37 appeal. We have passed orders stating that since these are money decrees there should be 100% deposit, with the respondent being entitled to withdraw the amount deposited and furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the High Court. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders dated 19.3.2018 and mandate a 100% deposit be made within a period of eight weeks from today. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 6.5 In light of the above position of law, reasons recorded and discussion supplied, the following directions are issued, (i) The order dated 02.01.2023 of the Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar - Commercial Court below exhibit 5 in Commercial Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 is modified. A further direction is hereby given that the respondent shall have to deposit the interest as awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 523 of the arbitral award to be calculated till the date of actual deposit of such amount. The cost awarded by the arbitrator shall also be deposited. (ii) The interest and costs as above shall be deposited with the Commercial Court below on or before 17.07.2023. (iii) The amount of interest and costs to be deposited as above, shall be a condition for stay on the operation and implementation of the award during the pendency of the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. (iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled to withdraw the amount of interest and cost. (iii) The amount of interest and costs to be deposited as above, shall be a condition for stay on the operation and implementation of the award during the pendency of the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. (iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled to withdraw the amount of interest and cost. (v) The total amount of interest and cost, once deposited, shall be invested by the Commercial Court in a Fixed Deposit with a nationalised bank, to earn the interest on cumulative basis, to be finally guided by the outcome of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. (vi) The rest of the directions regarding deposit and furnishing of security as given by the Commercial Court below in the order dated 02.01.2023 shall operate as they stand to operate. (vii) However, it is provided that out of 50% amount, directed to be deposited by the Commercial Court below in its order dated 02.03.2020, 50% of such 50% shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. (viii) The Commercial Court below shall expedite the hearing and disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Act to dispose of the same within four months from today. (ix) The parties will cooperate in expeditious disposal of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. (x) It is observed that while disposing of the proceedings under section 34, the Commercial Court below shall not construe any of the observations in the present order as expression on merits nor the Court below shall be influenced by any of the observations made in this order and shall decide the proceedings on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and to the aforesaid extent.