905-WP-2920-2026=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2026 The National Highways Authority Of India Thr. Project Director … Petitioner Vs. Madhuri Shirish Beke Thr. POA Milind V Kulkarni and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Sandeep Koregave a/w Siddharth Ambegaonkar for the Petitioner Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale a/w Vrunali J. Vilankar, Aaryan Sawant, V.V. Kadam for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3(a) to 3(e). Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No. 4 – State. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 08.05.2026 granting stay to the award of Arbitrator dated 08.06.2023 subject to depositing of 50% of compensation amount in the District Court within a period of two months. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Tejpal Ingale, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3(a) to 3(e) - claimants has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that impugned order is Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.09.15 14:50:47 +0530 905-WP-2920-2026=.doc passed below Exh.5, which was preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is appealable under Section 37 of the Act and, therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 4. While repealing the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would advert my attention to Section 36(3) of the Act which enables the party to file application for stay. It is submitted that in application Exh.5, though Section 9 is quoted, it is in fact, under Section 36 of the Act. 5. It is trite law that wrong mentioning of Section would not render the proceedings illegal or not maintainable. Award passed by the competent authority was subjected to challenge in arbitration proceedings which culminated in Award on 08.06.2023. Against the award, application under Section 34 has been preferred by the petitioner. Application Exh.5 in its letter and spirit is under Section 36(3) of the Act. I am of the considered view that impugned order is not appealable and writ petition is rightly filed. The objection of the respondents stands rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fraud has been played by the Arbitrator and criminal action has been set into motion against him. FIR is lodged on 08.06.2023 and there is a report of A.C.B. which would indicate involvement of the Arbitrator. It is submitted that Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5 905-WP-2920-2026=.doc the respondents – claimants have been unduly benefited. If the impugned order is sustained, the petitioner will face grave hardship in depositing the amount which is awarded arbitrarily. There are other claimants also, who would resort to same course. It is submitted that the petitioner has no objection for expediting the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act but direction to deposit 50% is onerous and unsustainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would advert my attention to the observations of the District Court in the impugned order granting liberty to the claimants to apply for withdrawal of the amount. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments. (i) Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Issar Pharmaceduticals Pvt. Ltd. (2024) SCC Online Bom 5978. (ii) National Collateral Management System Vs. Haryana Co-operative Supply, (2022) SCC Online P&H 4358. (iii) Popular Caterers Vs. Ameet Mehta & Ors. (2025) SCC Online SC 3334. (iv) Lifestyle Equities C.V. Vs. Amazon Technologies, (2026) 3 SCC 641. (v) Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. Power Mech Projects Ltd. (2022) SCC Online SC 1243. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Ingale would tender on record common judgment passed by this Court in the matters arising out of the self same acquisition proceedings. In those 20 matters, the District Judge had Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5 905-WP-2920-2026=.doc directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the amount was deposited. The approach of the petitioner against the present respondents is stated to be discriminatory. It is candidly submitted that the respondents at present do not wish to receive that amount as the proceedings are pending before the District Court. 9. I have considered the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in case of other claimants arising out of the same acquisition proceedings. The facts of the present matters are identical with the matters decided by common judgment dated 07.07.2026. In those matters also, the District Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount. The self- same course can be adopted in the present matter. 10. My attention is adverted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents – claimants were disbursed the amount and their claim for enhancement is under consideration. Learned District Judge has made passing observations that the claimants would be having liberty to withdraw the amount if the separate applications are filed but that is not the direction issued by the Court in the impugned order. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. 11. Though criminal law is set into motion against the erring Officer / Arbitrator, the latest update of the criminal proceedings have not been Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5 905-WP-2920-2026=.doc brought before this Court. The equities can be balanced by directing the petitioner to deposit the amount and withholding the same. 12. I find that there has to be consistency in the orders passed by the Court. No differential treatment can be given in the present matter. I find no substance in the petition. The directions issued in the impugned order needs to be complied with. The judgments cited by the petitioner are on the point that award of arbitrator can be stayed under Section 36(2) without imposing any condition if exceptional case is made out or it is obtained by fraud or corruption. The petitioner has complied with the condition in case of other claimants and disbursement is withheld. Similarly, in the present case disbursement can be withheld. 13. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 14. It is clarified that Civil Miscellaneous Application No.72 of 2023 shall be decided along with others expeditiously on its own merits without being influenced by the observations recorded by this Court. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5