JUDGMENT : S.B. PD. SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K Shahi, learned Advocate General for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior advocate for the respondent. 2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filled against the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Patna in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 (arising out of Old Execution Case No. 406 of 2018), whereby, the petitioner, a government undertaking was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest. By the impugned order, the order of attachment of the property and machinery belonging to the award debtor/petitioner was directed to be issued. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- (i) Set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Patna in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022; (ii) Stay the operation of the impugned order and all consequential proceedings in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 during the pendency of the present petition; (iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law and in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the learned Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 13.02.2018 had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 55,42,63,240/- in favour of respondent. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid within 90 days from the date of award, failing which simple interest @ 12% per annum would accrue until realization. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award has filed Arbitration Case No. 75 of 2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on the substantial ground which, prima facie establishes patent illegality of the award dated 13.02.2018. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 36 of the Act for stay of the operation of Arbitral Award dated 13.02.2018. 5. Learned Advocate General further argues that petitioner has already paid Rs. 45,09,57,683/- (75% of the awarded sum) to the respondent and the said payment has dully been acknowledged by the respondents in its supplementary affidavit but despite such acknowledgment, the learned Executing Court, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. 6. It is further argued that while passing the impugned judgment, learned Executing Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 which is wholly misplaced as the said decision pertains to execution proceedings where the award/decree had already attained finality upon adjudication up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court but in the present case, the arbitral award dated 13.02.2018 is still under substantive challenge at the very first instance under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment cannot be mechanically extended to the present proceedings. The arbitral award itself discloses substantial grounds of patent illegality and contravention of public policy, which are pending for judicial scrutiny and therefore, the impugned direction requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest at this premature stage is arbitrary, inequitable and without jurisdiction. 7. He further submits that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 is confined to cases where the arbitral process and judicial scrutiny have concluded and the decree holder’s entitlement has attained finality but extending the same principle to a case where the award is under challenge would amount to judicial overreach and disregard for Section 36(2)(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which explicitly contemplates stay of enforcement during pendency of challenge. The Executing Court, instead of adopting a balanced approach, has imposed an onerous and irreversible financial burden on the petitioner. 8. Learned Advocate General also argues that it is settled law that under Section 36(2) and (3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the power to impose conditions for stay is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, proportionately, and with due regard to (i) the solvency of the decree-holder; (ii) the prima facie merits of the challenge; (iii) the financial position of the judgment- debtor; and (iv) the need to balance equities between the parties. Hence, the impugned order, directing deposit of the entire awarded sum with interest in a single tranche, without this balancing exercise, is contrary to law and is fit to be set aside. The petitioner is a statutory corporation executing critical public works and infrastructure projects funded from the public exchequer. Hence, the impugned order, directing deposit of the entire awarded sum with interest in a single tranche, without this balancing exercise, is contrary to law and is fit to be set aside. The petitioner is a statutory corporation executing critical public works and infrastructure projects funded from the public exchequer. Diverting the entire awarded amount will disrupt ongoing projects of vital public importance and cause prejudice to the public at large. Judicial precedent recognizes that in cases involving public bodies, orders must be crafted to minimize adverse impact on public functions. Lastly, he prays for the reliefs sought for in his petition. 9. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that present Civil Miscellaneous petition is wholly lacking bona fide and is designed only to frustrate the fruit of the Award which was passed way back on 13.02.2018. It is relevant to mention here that initially Execution Case No. 406 of 2018 was filed in the year 2018 and the present Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 is a newly assigned case number which was renumbered on 10.03.2022. The Petitioner has filed an appeal against the Award dated 13.02.2018 which was preceded by a Notice u/s 34 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clearly stating that the Petitioner Corporation seeks only to challenge a part of the said Arbitral Awards dated 13.02.2018. 10. It is further argued that an application challenging the Award was subsequently filed which was numbered as Arbitration Case No. 75 of 2018. In the said application, a petition for stay had been filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the said Arbitration Case No. 75 of 2018, no stay was granted within 90 days nor the petitioner corporation has pressed for stay in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 11. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent further submits that in the entire order-sheet, neither any further application to press the Stay Petition nor the Objection Petition was filed by the Petitioner Corporation nor, the learned Execution Court found it fit to pass any kind of interim order, conditional or otherwise with regard to the execution case. 11. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent further submits that in the entire order-sheet, neither any further application to press the Stay Petition nor the Objection Petition was filed by the Petitioner Corporation nor, the learned Execution Court found it fit to pass any kind of interim order, conditional or otherwise with regard to the execution case. Even in Arbitration Case No. 75 of 2018 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, neither any application to press the Stay Petition was filed nor the Stay Petition was even pressed otherwise by the Petitioner Corporation. Lastly, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents prays to reject the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 12. Heard learned Advocate General and learned Senior counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on the records. 13. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Advocate General is that without hearing and passing any order in Arbitration Case No. 75 of 2018 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and also without passing any proper order on the application for stay of the operation of the arbitral award dated 13.02.2018 under Section 36 of the Act, the impugned order has been passed in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 filed on behalf of the respondent. He also argues that his petition under Sections 36(2)(3) of the Act is purely discretionary but must be exercised judicially, proportionately keeping in view the solvency of the decree holder, the prima facie merits of the challenge, the financial position of the judgment debtor and the needs to balance equities between the parties. 14. Regarding stay of operation of arbitral award, the provision has been made in Section 36 of the Act which reads as follows:- “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 sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purpose. (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; (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).]” 15. Section 35 of the Act deals with the provision of finality of arbitral awrd which reads as under:- “35. Finality of arbitral awards:- Subject to this Part an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively.” 16. After going through the aforesaid provision, it clearly transpires that the arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties/persons claiming under them respectively but subject to this part. 17. Finality of arbitral awards:- Subject to this Part an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively.” 16. After going through the aforesaid provision, it clearly transpires that the arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties/persons claiming under them respectively but subject to this part. 17. After going through the aforesaid factual aspect and appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate General and learned Senior counsel on behalf of both the parties, it become clear that the petition under Section 34 of the Act has not been decided/disposed of within the permissible extended statutory period of one year from the date of notice referred to in Sub-section 5 served upon other parties. The aforesaid petition under Section 34 has been filed on 09.05.2018 and thereafter an application has also been filed for stay of operation of arbitral award under Section 36(3) of the Act and without deciding the aforesaid two petitions, the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 has been passed in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 against the petitioner. 18. On the basis of above noted facts, it clearly transpires that the entire case of the respondent is based on the arbitral award passed in his favour on 13.02.2018 whereas the petitioner’s case is based on Section 34(6) and 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under which he has challenged the said award before a court of competent jurisdiction. As per argument of the petitioner, if the impugned order is upheld at present, his statutory rights will be frustrated. In this factual situation, the Court should adopt a balanced approach so that rights of either party may not be infringed. 19. So, for the ends of justice, the aforesaid two petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners under Sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is required to be disposed of by the learned Principal District Judge, Patna at the earliest, keeping in view the statutory provision under Sub-section 6 of Section 34 of the Act. 20. The aforesaid petitions filed by the petitioners must be disposed of expeditiously and latest by 80 working days of the concerned District Court before whom the aforesaid cases are pending so that the statutory provisions under Sections 34(6) as well as direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 20. The aforesaid petitions filed by the petitioners must be disposed of expeditiously and latest by 80 working days of the concerned District Court before whom the aforesaid cases are pending so that the statutory provisions under Sections 34(6) as well as direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 may be complied in its right perspective. Both the parties are also directed to cooperate in the hearing and speedy disposal of the aforesaid petitions. The aforesaid period of 80 days shall be counted from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 21. In the meantime, the operation of the Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 (arising out of Old Execution Case No. 406 of 2018) shall remain stayed. 22. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.