Arbitration -Amount awarded -Deposit of -Sections 9 and36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -Present petition filed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act seeking deposit of amount awarded to NHAI and restraining respondent from alienating assets -Whether respondent must secure and deposit awarded amount and disclose assets to safeguard enforcement of arbitral award -Held, Section 9 of Arbitration Act permits reliefs before, during, or post-arbitration -Post-award, execution under Section 36 of Arbitration Act is standard for enforcing awards -Courts rarely order deposits under Section 9of Arbitration Act, except in exceptional cases where it's vital to protect award holder -Merely winning award doesn't justify deposit orders -Courts require evidence of risks rendering award unenforceable -Grounds like financial instability or asset movement must be substantiated -NHAI's plea cites stakes involved and respondent's financial condition -It only speculates risks without proof of asset dissipation or unrealisable claims -Concession agreement remains active, and IRB pledged no fund appropriation from escrow until dues clear -Courts apply strict standards to post-award Section 9 of Arbitration Act relief -There must be realisable award and proof of risk making it illusory -Precarious financial conditions alone are insufficient -IRB's substantial investments and commitments negate grounds for immediate deposit -Courts must balance fairness while ensuring awards aren't rendered illusory -Current facts don't justify granting NHAI's requested deposit -Petition dismissed. Deposit under Section 9 of Arbitration Act needs proven risk of award becoming unenforceable, not mere existence of award.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
OMP (I) (Comm.) 172/2024
Decided On: 18.10.2024
National Highways Authority of India Vs. IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: C. Hari Shankar, J.
