while ordering a stay, has essentially furnished only two reasons. The first reason pertains to the question of cess, while the only other reason is that the respondent is not “a fly by operator”. 9. Mr C A Sundaram, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that: (i) The amended provisions of the statute incorporate provisions of the CPC in regard to ordering a stay of an award which contains provisions for the payment of money; (ii) Under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, the requirement is for furnishing of security and the deposit of money should not, therefore, be regarded as a default option; (iii) The High Court had due regard to the fact that the respondent is a statutory body and correctly held that security should be furnished in the form of a bank guarantee; (iv) As such the impugned judgment should not be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution; and (v) The body of precedents which Mr Divan relied on pertains to appeals under Section 37 of the