The High Court · 2025

M/s Excel constructions, A Regd. Partnership Firm, Rep-by its f\Ianaging Partner' V.v S S.S n".a Raju, b/o VV.R"" Raju, Aged about 53 years' Having its office at Block No. 17, Flat No.4, Kendriya Vihar, Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ARBITRAL AWARD HOLDER/CLAIMANT -order AND Mis Bharat Biotech lnternational Ltd., Having Regd' office at Genome Valley, Director' iurkapatty, Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy Dr.Krishna Ella, Agecl aUout 5S y""tt, O""- Business' R/o KSE Farm House' H.No.1-96/2 & 3, Maharajpet, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy DistrictS9l?!3-.--- .llCispoHoeuri.tuocluexr DEBToR/RESPoNDENT Rep by lts l411a9]n9 -District, lA NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl51CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, inu Higk Court may be pleased.to in the ,"aity if," conditional order of the iourt of Judge' Principal Special cadre of District Judge for Trial and Dispoial of Commercial Disputes at trri*"iroliji"o rdf"rtrrr"n, zi-ozs tn cEA No 41 of 2o25 in c E P No'9 ot 2023 the Petitioneiiieiein to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs i]r C50,0Ool: along with interest accrued thereon in the said court without furnishing any Bank Guarantee. -p"i.itting -Court Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. P' Bhaskara Mohan counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A. Venkatesh, senior counsel representing Mr. G. kalYan ChakravarthY The Court made the following: ORDER I TTIE TION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHAI'TA(:)HARYA AND .T}IE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHA,II RAO r.A.NO.1 0F 2025 IN AND CITIL RE\/ISION PETITION NO .L620 ctF. 2025 Dr P. I:Lr:.iii-,luohan, Iearned counsel appearing for the pctitlofei. l\1r. .1. ,' r:,:rrLcsh. lcarned ('l-rkr.r ., .i.rrtrd counscl for the respondent. -Senjor Counsel represt,ntlnll VL G. Kalyan ORDER: I Io r.i 'ble Justrce Moushumi Bhattacharya) l. 'll r (,'r\i.l Revision petition (CRp) arise.s olt ( f a docket order ,1. t :r 10.03.2025 passed by the Commercjal ( ourt in an applicirtior f,led by the Award-holder for withclra\,, ing ln amoun[ of Rs. 1,18.:(),000/- deposited by the Award_debtor. 2. A11e r rr:nring the arguments made on be hall oi.the parties, tl'ie Corn, r I rr ial Court on 1O.03.2025 allowed the lretLt on filed by []rc Au alr lr.rldcr by permitting the petitioner to u,it hdraw the anlou rt rl r l ositcd by the respondent in compliirnr;e with the order Jrrss, r br.a Co ordinerte Bench on OS.L2.2O2+ in an Appeal liled br.Llrl rrspondent subject to furnishing of a bank liuarantee. 3. T1( r r de r of the Co_ordinate Bench weLs l rassed in C.O.M.C._\ lrl:.36 of 2024 in an Appeal filed by the r,:spondent ag.lins I the respondent,s applic ation for under section 34 c f .l.lrc lr,. ciismissal of A rbitration 1sc(ting-rrsrr 1,, tf the Award \ and Conciliation Act, 1996 The Co-ordinare Bench had directed the respondent (the appellant in c.o.M.c.A.No.36 of 2024) to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal within a certain time frame as a condition for stay of execution of the Award. The petitioner/Award_holder (the respondent No. I before the Co-ordinate Bench) was given the liberty of filing an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited bv the Award-debtor. 4 . The docket order dated 1O.O3.2O25 which is under challenge in the present CRp permitted the pedtioner/Award_ holder to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondcnt subjecl to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to lhe amount accompanied with an undertaking for the amount withdrawn. 5 Learned counser appearing for the petitioner/Award-holder submits that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in arranging for a bank guarantee of an equivalent amount since the bank is insisting on a IOO%o margin for the bank guarantee. Counsel relies on decisions to show that it is not necessarv lbr an Award-holder to furnish a bank guarantee for withdrawing the securily put in by the Award-debtor.

6. -r a r r t:d Senior Counsel appe artng resporrl,: tr /Au,ard-debtor submits that furnishing of a bank guaran t(,( ;c r Lhe amount withdrawn is necessary ir the event the rcs;p r t( cnt succeeds in the Appeal filed under sertion 37 of the I 99() .\ :.1 . Senior Counsel relies on sevr:ral cas,)s to show that Lhc (i. urts have usually insisted on the Av ard_holder furnisl ir F ec:uivalent security for withdrawing the amr:unt put in by the \r, .r.J clcbror. 7 . V./c Lar c cor-rsidered the submissions ma(le on lrt half o[ the parties, 'lhc L,rrr lisputed facts show that the petitione;-, rvlro was the 8. claimar I i,r : rr: Arbitration, was awarded approxirtale $ Rs.2.3g crores. 1'1rr, -e 5p6n61snt unsuccessfully applieri for. serting_aside of the 4riarr ard later approached the Co_ordinate Bench in an Appeal f ',, I r thc order of dismissal of rhe settlngilsr(i, itpltlication. The Co_ordinatc Eien c r-r stayed executicn c Lle, Award subject to the respondent dr:pos iting 50Zo of the arvarlic<l itmounl, which comes to Rs. 1,1g,50,000 ,_. 9. IJt:nr. :. rs things stand today, the Awarcl_holcicr is yet to rcap the Lc:r, 'iLs ol the Award dated 19.09.2O17, i.e., f ;r almost 8 years. "lr:' ,:xecution of the Award has also been sta,red. The Au,ard,cl.-'Lt rr- has also not got the benefit of u.ithdrawing the rt:s pondent's amount of 50% of the awarded amount deposited by the respondent, i.e., Rs. 1,18,50,000/- till date What the Award-holder essentially seeks, that too after 8 years' is that the Award holder should at least be permitted to withdraw 50%r of the awarded amount deposited by the Award-debtor' which comes to Rs.59,25,0O0 l- and be allowed to furnish security for the remaining amount'' This means that the Award-holder u'ill only have the benefit of the liquid amount of 25o/o oi the awarded amount and is ready to furnish security for the remaining 25Vo ol the awardcd amount/ amount deposited by the Award-debtor- 10. We do not find the said request unreasonabie in any form' The Award-holder is certainly entitled under the 1996 Act to enjoy the fruits of the Award particularly when the execution thereof has been stayed. There is no hnding by any Court that thc Award debtor lhces a real risk of the amount not being made good by the Award-holder if the Award-debtor were to succeed in the section 37 APPeal'

11.t.A-No.lof2025isaccordinglydisposedofbypermitting the Award-holder/ petitioner to withdraw Rs'59'25'0O0/ without furnishing any security' The Award-holder shall be at liberty to furnish security for the remaining Rs 59'25'O0O/- in any other form to the satisfaction of the Trial Court including by way of a : bank gu:r; it t[ee. The Award_debtor shall not prrt a;ry further hurdlcs i I lr l u,ay of the Award_holder from w.ithd rau. ng 50Zo ol. Lhe amrrL.l: i r1::posrted by fhe Au.ard_deblor. 12. C.R.:,..io. l620 of 2025, along wi[l-, all applic:rtion s , .s accordingly disposed of. :onnected ln [e.rr orders, if any, sha stand vacaterl. ].hcr,: shall be no order as t() costs. //TRUE COPYII SEI/- N. SRIHARI FPUTY REGISTRAR rD \', \ecrroru oFFrcER To, 1- The Princ pal [ipecial Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Cor,rnercial Disputes, at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to D.. l) Bhaskara Mohan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to lvlr (; kalyan Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD C,:pies Kam/gh \q- HIGH COURr DATED:0910612025 ORDER l.A.No.1 ot il.A25 IN/AND CRP.No.1620,of 20Zs ,. la' '. HE s Ik .: ii_;lr ., \\ 1 ! ,tuu nfi :) ':\'. . DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PE:TITION GeP?'to w- €Gte7