ORDER : Alok Aradhe, CJ. Mr. Atul Chitale, learned Senior Counsel represents Venkata Sai Krishna Ponnuru, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P. Soma Sekhara Naidu, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Court’) by which I.A.No.16 of 2022 in COP.No.28 of 2022 preferred by the petitioner under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking stay of enforcement of the Award dated 04.05.2021, has been allowed subject to payment of 50% of the amount of award along with interest. 4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of Two Laning of Existing Hunli-Anini Road on EPC Basis in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in November, 2015, by National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’). Subsequently, on 09.11.2016, the petitioner and the employer entered into an Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement. Prior to execution of the aforesaid Agreement, letter of approval was issued in favour of the petitioner and thereafter a Sub-Contract Agreement dated 28.09.2016 was executed between the parties. 5. The dispute arose between the parties and the same was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal by an Award dated 04.05.2021 dismissed the claim made by the petitioner and allowed the counterclaim filed by respondent No.1. 6. The aforesaid Award was challenged in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Act. An application under Section 36(3) of the Act was filed seeking stay of the Award dated 04.05.2021. The Commercial Court by an order dated 24.01.2024 stayed the execution of the Award dated 04.05.2021 subject to payment of 50% of the amount awarded in the Award dated 04.05.2021. The said order is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Commercial Court by an order dated 24.01.2024 stayed the execution of the Award dated 04.05.2021 subject to payment of 50% of the amount awarded in the Award dated 04.05.2021. The said order is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Commercial Court is bereft of any reason and has been passed in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 8 SCC 112 so far as it pertains to the finding that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) have to be mandatorily followed mandatory, while deciding the petition under Section 36(3) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Commercial Court has not even adverted to the Award dated 04.05.2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and without assigning any cogent reason, has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. It is submitted that an Award can be stayed without even imposing any condition. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited (supra) and the two Single Bench decisions of Bombay High Court in CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. M/s.SAR Parivahan Private Limited (I.A.(L) No.6246 of 2024 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.5565 of 2024) and M/s. PFS Shipping (India) Limited v. Captain V.K. Gupta and another, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10048 . 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the order of the Commercial Court is reasonable and the Commercial Court has power to impose conditions as a condition precedent to stay the Award. It is submitted that the order passed by the Commercial Court does not call for any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 10. Section 36(3) of the Act deals with the power of the Court for stay of operation of the Award and is extracted below for the facility of reference. 9. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 10. Section 36(3) of the Act deals with the power of the Court for stay of operation of the Award and is extracted below for the facility of reference. “(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (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).” 11. Thus, it is evident that the power to stay an Award is discretionary in nature and may be exercised subject to such terms and conditions as the Court deems fit. The Court while considering the application under Section 36(3) of the Act shall have due regard to the provisions of grant of stay of the money decree under the provisions of the CPC and the conditions for grant of money decree are not mandatorily required to be followed while deciding a petition under Section 36(3) of the Act. The prayer for stay of the award has to be dealt with for reasons to be recorded and subject to such conditions as the Court may deem fit. The prayer for stay of the award has to be dealt with for reasons to be recorded and subject to such conditions as the Court may deem fit. The Commercial Court has adverted to the facts and submissions of the parties from paragraphs 1 to 13 and thereafter, in paragraph 15, has framed an issue for consideration. 12. In paragraph 20, it has been observed that the application for grant of stay of an arbitral Award has to be decided as per the parameters under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC. The Commercial Court has held as follows: “22. In view of the above provision, the Court has to decide whether the operation of the award is to be stayed or not by considering the award as money decree. Now the law is well settled that for grant stay of the enforcement of the award, the court has to follow the principles which governs stay of a money decree. At this stage, the court will not decide the merits of the case under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It is obligation of the court to consider the application for grant of stay of the award for payment of money, having regard to the provisions of the CPC for grant of stay on execution of a money decree. Therefore, the court is guided by the parameters to be considered under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, which reads as follows: 10. Order XLI Rule 5 CPC Stay by Appellate Court:- (1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed form 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. 24. The Hon'ble Apex Courts has observed that imposing of conditions while granting stay of the enforcement of the award is mandatory and that the stay cannot be granted unconditional. The court shall grant stay on equitable considerations and that too when the court is satisfied that the appellant will be put to irreparable loss and always consider possibility of imposition of the conditions before granting the stay. 25. The court shall grant stay on equitable considerations and that too when the court is satisfied that the appellant will be put to irreparable loss and always consider possibility of imposition of the conditions before granting the stay. 25. In the light of above, imposing of conditions for stay of enforcement of the arbitral award is mandatory. This court is not deciding the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on equities, it is desirable to direct the petitioner to deposit the part of the amount awarded by the learned arbitrator. Having considered the same the petition is allowed subject to depositing of 50% of the amount awarded by the learned arbitral tribunal along with interest calculated till the date of this order within two months from the date of the order and accordingly the point is answered. 26. In the result, the petition is allowed and stay is granted for enforcement of the award dated 04.05.2021 passed by the learned arbitral tribunal subject to condition of depositing of 50% of the amount awarded by the learned arbitral tribunal along with interest calculated till the date of this order within three months from the date of this order.” 13. The Commercial Court has recorded following findings. (i) It is well settled that the Award passed by the Arbitrator has to be treated as money decree and the application filed for stay of enforcement of the Award has to be decided as per the parameters under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC. The Court has to follow the principles which govern grant of money decree (para 20). (ii) The Court will not decide the merits of the case under Section 34 of the Act and it is the obligation of the Court to consider the application for grant of Award by payment of money having regard to the provisions of CPC for grant of stay of execution of money decree. (iii) That imposition of conditions for stay of enforcement of arbitral Award is mandatory (para 25). 14. Thus, it is evident that the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 36(3) of the Act has been decided on the assumption that the provisions of CPC have to be mandatorily followed while deciding the petition under Section 36(3) of the Act and the conditions have to be mandatorily imposed for grant of stay. 14. Thus, it is evident that the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 36(3) of the Act has been decided on the assumption that the provisions of CPC have to be mandatorily followed while deciding the petition under Section 36(3) of the Act and the conditions have to be mandatorily imposed for grant of stay. Undoubtedly, the Court can stay the award subject to such terms and conditions as may deem fit by assigning reasons therefor. No reasons have been assigned in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Commercial Court in paragraph 26 of the impugned order. The impugned order is bereft of reasons and the order has been passed without adverting to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited (supra). Ordinarily, we would have agreed with the conclusion of the Commercial Court to impose a reasonable condition while dealing with a prayer for grant of stay. However, as the application for stay is required to be decided on the touchstone of the well settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited (supra), which has not been adhered to by the Commercial Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 15. The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court to hear the parties afresh and to decide the application for stay in the light of the provisions contained in Section 36(3) of the Act as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited (supra) by a speaking order within a period of two (2) weeks from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.