Staying an award in revisional jurisdiction may be conditioned upon the deposit of the entire decreetal amount.

The petitioner filed a Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interim order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 1604/2025.

The NCDRC order had stayed the operation of a State Commission decree (dated 23.05.2025) on the condition that the petitioner deposit the entire decreetal amount within six weeks.

The petitioner contended that such a condition was an "onerous" pre-deposit requirement not mandated by the Consumer Protection Act for revisional jurisdiction and that the order was non-speaking.

1. Whether the NCDRC’s direction to deposit the decreetal amount as a condition for staying the execution constitutes an illegal "pre-deposit" requirement for filing a revision petition.

2. Whether the interim order passed by the NCDRC violates the principles laid down in Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Sanjiv Kumar Sharma regarding reasoned orders.

The court examined the discretionary powers of the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act (2019/1986). It distinguished between "pre-deposit" as a statutory requirement for filing an appeal/revision and the "conditional stay" of a decree during pendency.

The petitioner relied on Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Sanjiv Kumar Sharma (2022) 8 SCC 474, which mandates that orders imposing onerous conditions must assign reasons and justification.

The High Court clarified that the NCDRC did not mandate the deposit as a jurisdictional prerequisite to file the revision petition. Rather, the Commission exercised its discretion to grant a stay on the lower court’s decree, making that stay subject to the deposit of the decreetal amount (minus any prior deposits).

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that this condition caused "irreparable loss," noting that the order was a standard exercise of stay-granting power. However, to balance the interests of justice and protect the funds during the pendency of the revision, the Court determined that the deposited amount should be secured in a fixed deposit.

Any application for disbursement of said funds by the respondent must be decided on its own merits by the appropriate forum. The petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits of the underlying revision petition.