Manish Pitale, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the impugned Arbitral award has been taken out for execution, there is urgency in the matter and this Court may consider the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of unconditional stay of the impugned award.

3. A perusal of Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shows that a separate application is to be filed for the purpose for pressing prayer for grant of stay of the Arbitral Award. In the present case, the Petitioner has prayed for grant of stay of the impugned Arbitral award as prayer clause (b) in the prayers drafted in the present petition filed under Section 34 of the said Act. Only on this ground, this Court could have rejected the prayer being made on behalf of the Petitioner, but since the learned Counsel for the parties were heard and extreme urgency is projected on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court is proceeding to pass an order on the prayer for grant of stay of the Arbitral award.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned award would show that an extraordinary case for grant of unconditional stay is made out, for the reason that the defences of the Petitioner have not been referred to and discussed by the learned Arbitrator while passing the impugned award. It is submitted that although a direction is given to the Petitioner to pay a specific amount along with interest to the Respondent (original claimant), the aspect of determination of damages/losses and mitigating factors in that regard has not been undertaken by the learned Arbitrator.

5. The dispute in the present case arose between the parties in the context of a License Agreement executed between the parties, whereby the Petitioner which is TV Channel had taken the rights of airing a TV Series called "Jai Hanuman". As per agreement, specific consideration was to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent for aired of 350 episodes of the said TV series but, the parties agreed for payment in installments by the Petitioner with specific number of episodes being handed over to the Petitioner.

6. It appears that when some of the episodes were aired by the Petitioner, it was observed that there was drop in the Television Rating Points (TRP Ratings), as a consequence of which, the Petitioner refused to take further episodes from the Respondent, which gave rise to the said disputes.

7. It appears that the claim of the Respondent was that since the license for the entire set of episodes was due and payable under the agreement, the Petitioner was liable to pay the said amount. The Petitioner claims that specific defences were raised and an argument was also made as regards mitigating factors which the learned Arbitrator ought to have taken into consideration while determining the amount payable in the facts and circumstances of the present case to the Respondent.

8. This Court has perused the impugned award. The terms of the license agreement have been referred to and upon the material available on record the learned Arbitrator has reached specific findings to determine the amount payable to the Respondent. This Court is of the opinion that in order to make out an extraordinary case for grant of unconditional stay, the Petitioner ought to be able to demonstrate that the findings rendered by the learned Arbitrator were not even possible findings on the basis of the material on record or that such findings could be said to be in the teeth of the agreement executed between the parties.

9. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not been able to make out the said case and that therefore, the prayer for grant of unconditional stay cannot be accepted.

10. Even otherwise, Section 36(3) of the aforesaid Act clearly stipulates in the first proviso thereto, that when an Arbitral award directs payment of money, the Court must have due regard to the provision of the grant of stay for money decree under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second proviso thereto does specify that unconditional stay of an award can be granted provided the Petitioner is able to make out a strong prima facie case that either the agreement which is basis of the award or the upon making of the award itself is induced or affected by fraud of corruption. This Court aware that apart from said factor, if a Petitioner is able to indeed made out extraordinary case, indicating that the arbitral award deserves to be set aside on the parameters now available after amendment to the Act, in the year 2015, an order of unconditional stay can be passed.

11. But, this Court is not convinced that the Petitioner has either being able to place its case in the second proviso to Section 36(3) of the said Act, or that it has been able to make out an extraordinary case on any other factor for grant of unconditional stay of the impugned award.

12. In view of the above, the prayer for grant of unconditional stay is rejected. The impugned award being nothing but a money decree, it is directed that the impugned award shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing, subject to the Petitioner depositing the awarded amount within six weeks from today. Upon such amount being deposited, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court shall invest the same as per standard practice.

13. It is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to deposit the awarded amount in the stipulated period of time, the order passed today, stand withdrawn and the prayer for grant of stay shall stand rejected, without reference further to this Court.

14. The Petitioner is permitted to place on record compilation of documents, within six weeks from today.

15. List the petition for admission/hearing on 26th June, 2023.