ORDER : 1. These petitions arise from an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 2-1-2025 in Writ Petition No.11827/23 and Writ Petition No.6147/24 respectively by which the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents - herein (Solapur Municipal Transport Undertaking), challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Solapur in application below Exhibit 5' in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.160/19 came to be disposed of, modifying the order passed by the District Judge to a certain extent. 2. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation. 3. The operative part of the order passed by the High Court reads thus:- "(i) The Arbitral Award dated 16.04.2019 shall stand stayed for a further period of six (6) months from the today as I propose to pass directions to the learned District Judge seized of CMA No.160 of 2019 to dispose of the said proceedings within that period but subject to further directions herein; (ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 is modified to the extent of directing the Undertaking to deposit the amount of Rs.6,16,04,648/- (Rupees Six Crore Sixteen Lakh Four Thousand Six Hundred and Forty-eight only) as security before the District Court, Solapur to show its bonafides within a period of eight (8) weeks from today; (iii) Learned District Judge / Court shall determine CMA No.160/2019 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six (6) months from today; (iv) The deposit by the Undertaking as directed herein above in clause (ii) shall be subject to the final decision in CMA No.160 of 2019; (v) The Execution proceeding filed by the Company shall stand stayed for a further period of six (6) months from today; and (vi) All contentions of parties before the District Court in CMA No.160 of 2019 are expressly kept open." 4. Thus, it appears that the Corporation has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,16,04,648/- (Rupees Six Crore Sixteen Lakh Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty-eight only) within a period of 8 weeks from today. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that his client would deposit this amount as directed by the High Court. 6. We are not inclined to interfere with this part of the order passed by the High Court. 7. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that his client would deposit this amount as directed by the High Court. 6. We are not inclined to interfere with this part of the order passed by the High Court. 7. However, what has been pointed out by Dr. Singhvi are few observations made by the High Court as contained in Paras 15, 16 and 17 respectively of the impugned order. 8. We quote the relevant paras:- "15. The bone of contention in the present case is the floor height of the subject buses. Substantial witness action has also been undertaken on the above issue. The argument and submissions of the Company that it was a bad choice of the Undertaking to order low floor height buses has found favour in the Tribunal's Award. While answering issue No.1 which is the principal issue, it is seen that the Tribunal has on the basis of evidence of claimant's witness No.3 come to a conclusion that since he has not given any opinion as an expert witness on the cause of the cracks to the chassis of the subject buses, it is of no assistance to the Undertaking's case that the cracks on the chassis of the Jan buses occurred because of the any manufacturing/design defect. Prima facie, on the basis of mere numbers, this aforesaid finding appears to be incoherent in my opinion for the following reason. 16. All 99 Jan buses developed the cracks in their chassis rendering them unpliable in one go. Initially within a period of 1 year, 87 out of 99 buses developed cracks and subsequently all of them developed cracks. If all buses developed the cracks then it could 17. In view of my above prima facie observations and findings after going through the record of the case and delineating the submissions made by learned Advocates for parties in the attending facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that challenge maintained to the Award deserves to be decided in accordance with law. Considering the provisions of Section 34 of the said Act readwith provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC, it would be appropriate to permit the Undertaking to deposit 25% of the principal sum in the Award under challenge before the District Court and pass appropriate directions for disposal of CMA No.160 of 2019 expeditiously." 9. According to Dr. Considering the provisions of Section 34 of the said Act readwith provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC, it would be appropriate to permit the Undertaking to deposit 25% of the principal sum in the Award under challenge before the District Court and pass appropriate directions for disposal of CMA No.160 of 2019 expeditiously." 9. According to Dr. Singhvi, the High Court seems to have given a final effect in so far as the rights and obligations of the parties are concerned, much to the prejudice of his client because Section 34 appeal is yet to be heard. 10. We clarify that the Court while hearing Section 34 appeal shall not be influenced in any manner by the observations made in Paras 15, 16 and 17 respectively and shall proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. 12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.