https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82772 The Supreme Court examined a challenge u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award and the grant of conditional stay on its execution. The High Court had directed the respondent, a statutory undertaking, to furnish a bank guarantee only for the principal amount awarded, excluding interest and costs, reasoning that the respondent was not a "fly-by operator." The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act does not distinguish between governmental and private entities, and the High Court erred in basing its decision on the respondent's status as a statutory authority. The Court modified the High Court's order, directing the respondent to deposit 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, by a specifi..... en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2024 13:18:16 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 13:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82772 The Supreme Court examined a challenge u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award and the grant of conditional stay on its execution. The High Court had directed the respondent, a statutory undertaking, to furnish a bank guarantee only for the principal amount awarded, excluding interest and costs, reasoning that the respondent was not a "fly-by operator." The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act does not distinguish between governmental and private entities, and the High Court erred in basing its decision on the respondent's status as a statutory authority. The Court modified the High Court's order, directing the respondent to deposit 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, by a specifi..... Highlights Indian Laws Tue, 05 Nov 2024 13:18:16 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82772