As per case facts, a dispute arose from a development agreement concerning unutilized FSI and TDR benefits, leading to an arbitration where a majority award directed petitioners to pay compensation. ... The petitioners challenged this award under the Arbitration Act and sought a stay on its execution. The District Judge granted a conditional stay, requiring the deposit of the entire award amount with interest. The question arose whether the District Judge's condition was mechanical and if the majority award suffered from patent illegalities, especially concerning damages without proof of actual loss. Finally, the High Court observed that the petitioners had indeed constructed beyond their rights and improperly waived ULC conditions. It found that the arbitrators' compensation, based on an architect's report and ready reckoner rates, was not egregiously perverse or patently illegal. The court concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate an "exceptional case" for unconditional stay, upholding the District Judge's discretionary order.