“To read Section 36, prior to The 2015 Amendment Act, as inferring something negative, namely, that where the time for making an application under Section 34 has not expired and therefore, on such application being made within time, an automatic-stay ensues, is to read something into Section 36 which is not there at all. This also finds support from the language of Section 9, which specifically enables a party to apply to a Court for reliefs “after the making of the Arbitration Award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36”. These words in Section 9 have not undergone any change by reason of The 2015 or 2019 Amendment Acts. Thus, the reasoning of the Judgments in NALCO, 2004 1 SCC 54 and Fiza Developers, (2009) 17 SCC 79 being per incuriam in not noticing Sections 9, 35 and the second part of Section 36 do not commend themselves to us and do not state the law correctly.”
– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1074 of 2019].