As per case facts, the appellant was awarded a contract for capital dredging, leading to an arbitral award in their favor for a substantial sum. The respondent challenged this award ... and obtained a conditional stay from the High Court, which mandated a bank guarantee for the principal amount but excluded interest and costs, primarily based on the respondent's status as a statutory undertaking and an alleged error in one claim. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in granting a conditional stay solely with a bank guarantee for the principal sum and exempting interest and costs, particularly by differentiating based on the respondent’s nature as a statutory body, rather than requiring a deposit of the full awarded amount. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's decision was erroneous. It clarified that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, not distinguishing between governmental and private entities, and thus, no preferential treatment should be extended to a statutory body for stay conditions. The Court emphasized that CPC provisions serve as guidance, and security form should not depend on the party’s status. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the order, directing the respondent to deposit 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, as a prerequisite for the stay.