Case Title – POPULAR CATERERS vs. AMEET MEHTA & ORS.
Citation – 2025 INSC 1355
Date – 18.11.2025
The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently declined to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of the arbitral award, holding that the requirement to deposit the security amount was justified since the award was not shown to have been induced or tainted by fraud or corruption.
- The Hon’ble Court relied on its recent judgment in Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc., which says that an unconditional stay can be granted only in very rare cases, mainly when fraud or corruption is involved.
- The dispute began after Popular Caterers paid a ₹4-crore security deposit under a 2017 MoU to provide catering services at Tulip Star Hotel, Mumbai. Within days, the Mumbai Suburban Collector banned events at the hotel, causing the arrangement to collapse.
- In arbitration, Maple Leaf’s promoters were directed to refund the ₹4 crore with interest. Maple Leaf challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted an unconditional stay, stopping Popular Caterers from recovering any money. Popular Caterers appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, arguing the stay was wrongly granted.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed, saying the case did not involve fraud, corruption, or any “egregiously perverse” error that would justify an unconditional stay under Section 36(3). The Hon’ble Court provided that the following requirements need to be fulfilled to grant unconditional stay-
- The decree is egregiously perverse,
- is riddled with patent illegalities,
- is facially untenable; and/or
- such other exceptional causes similar in nature.
- The Hon’ble Court added that even under CPC principles, Maple Leaf had not shown any exceptional circumstances that would entitle them to avoid depositing security. Hence, the Hon’ble High Court order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
