1 20-wp 7114.2026 +.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7114 OF 2026 ( NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THR. ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, SHRI. B. S. SALUNKE VS ANIL S/O ANAND BONDE AND ORS. ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7116 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7117 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7118 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7119 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7120 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7121 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7122 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7123 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7124 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7125 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7126 OF 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7115 OF 2026 Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Thotange, Advocate for petitioner in all petitions. Ms. K. P. Marpakwar, Ms. M.H.Deshmukh, Mr. A.M.Joshi, Mr. N.S.Autkar, Mr. D. P. Thakre, Ms. T.H.Khan, AGPs for respondents/State in respective petitions. CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2026 1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) All these petitions involves common issue and therefore, are decided together with the consent of the parties. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order impugned dated 26/02/2026 and has contended that same is contrary to the law. He submits that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as while granting the stay, 50% of amount of Award was directed to be deposited, which is a huge amount. KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:13558 2 20-wp 7114.2026 +.odt 4) Per contra, learned AGP submits that the order passed by the District Judge-1 is legal and proper, since the Court has taken into consideration the parameters which are applicable for grant of stay. 5) With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through the record of the case. 6) The lands of respondents were acquired for widening the National Highway and consequently the compensation was determined by the Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer. The Award to that effect was passed, which was challenged by the petitioner in proceedings before the District Judge-1 Malkapur, District Buldhana under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7) Leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the order impugned is perused, it would reveals that the Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, as the claimants would be in a position to withdraw the amount deposited. He thus prayed for setting aside the order. 8) When the order impugned is perused, it is crystal clear that it is in the form of a money decree. What has been ordered by the District Judge-1 is deposit of 50% of the amount of Award and on that condition, the stay was granted. At this stage, it is necessary to take into consideration the provisions of Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which clearly states that upon filing of an application under Sub Section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral Award, the Court may, subject to such condition as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such Award for the reasons to be KOLHE 3 20-wp 7114.2026 +.odt recorded in writing. The proviso also states that while considering the application for grant of stay in case of an arbitral Award for payment of money, due regard should be had to the provisions for grant of stay of money decree under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. 9) When the impugned order is perused, it would be crystal clear that the District Judge-1 has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect and in order to balance the equity has stayed the Award, but with a rider that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount. As such, no perversity is pointed out or any error of jurisdiction is brought to my notice. Even otherwise it is not the case of petitioner that the Award was induced or effected by fraud or corruption. 10) Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the concerned Court be directed to honour the mandate of Section 34(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If appropriate application is made by the parties, the Court concerned will certainly look into it and thus no orders are required. 11) Hence, petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:43:16