Judgment :

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Calling in question the defensibility of the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FAFO No. 875 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench, after admitting the appeal, while dealing with the application for stay, directed the Appellants to deposit the entire amount awarded by the arbitrator in the court below with a further direction permitting the claimant-Respondent to withdraw half of the said amount without furnishing security and remaining half after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the District Judge, Kanpur with a further stipulation that in case of default in making the deposit, the order of stay shall automatically stand vacated.

3. The essential facts which are to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that an agreement was executed between Kanpur Jal Sansthan, the Appellant herein, with the Respondent, M/s. Bapu Construction, on 10.06.1987 for "supply of sand for slow sand filter" for a value of Rs. 21,43,200/-. As per the conditions contained in the agreement the work was to commence 23.5.1987 and was to be completed within one year. During the subsistence of the contract disputes arose between the parties as a consequence of which the Respondent moved an application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act") for appointment of an arbitrator. After the learned Arbitrator was appointed, he proceeded with the arbitration and, eventually, passed an award on 20.1.2009 allowing the claim of the Respondent by awarding a total sum of Rs. 32,62,415.30 with a further stipulation that the said sum shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the year 1988. The Appellant herein filed an objection under Section 34 of the Act to set aside the award dated 20.1.2009 in Arbitration Petition No. 32 of 2003 on many a ground. The learned District Judge, Kanpur, vide order dated 30.3.2013, rejected the application which was the subject-matter of Misc. Case No. 40/70 of 2009.

4. The failure in sustaining the objection before the learned District Judge compelled the Appellant to file FAFO No. 875 of 2013 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Along with the appeal an application for stay was filed. The Division Bench passed an interim order, as has been mentioned hereinbefore.

5. We have heard Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

6. Criticizing the justifiability of the order, Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that the Division Bench has fallen into error by directing deposit of entire award amount and release of the same in favour of the claimant-Respondent applying the principle of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure though the said principle is not applicable to the Appellant which is an extended wing of the State. It is urged by him that the Division Bench has failed to analyse the merits of the case, namely, the enormous delay in filing the application for appointment of an arbitrator, nature of claims which are absolutely stale and that apart, how the award is flagrantly violative of public policy. It is further urged by him that the principle of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code has to be read in harmony with Order XXVII Rule 8A of the Code and on such harmonious reading it is clear as sunshine that such a condition is not likely to be imposed on a governmental organization. To buttress his submission he has commended us to the decision in State of Kerala v. Kuruvilla, AIR 2004 Ker 233.

7. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, resisting the aforesaid submissions, contended that after the objection preferred under Section 34 of the Act has been rejected, the award passed by the learned Arbitrator becomes executable by itself and, therefore, it has the status of a money decree and hence, the Division Bench has c