JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petition raises an issue which falls in a narrow compass. The issue which arises for consideration is : as to how money deposited by the judgment debtor with the Registry of this Court under an interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal is to be appropriated towards the satisfaction of the decree.

Prefatory facts

2. The background in which this issue arises for consideration is as follows.

3. The judgment debtor appointed the decree holder as an agent via an agreement dated 30.3.1982 (hereafter referred to as “1st Agreement”) for importing Crude Palm Kernel Oil (in short “CPKO”) into the country. The aggregate CIF value of CPKO was pegged Rs.1,85,95,100/-. In lieu of the service, which the decree holder was required to offer, it was to be paid remuneration at the rate of 5% of the value of the imported CPKO which included costs and expenditure incurred in that behalf.

3.1. The record shows that via another agreement dated 13.9.1982 (hereafter referred to as “2nd Agreement”), the judgment debtor agreed to sell the oil processed at its factory to the decree holder. The decree holder in terms of the 2nd Agreement was, required to pay at the price set out therein.

3.2. The record also shows that the disputes arose between the parties which led both of them to approach this Court via under Section 20 petitions filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter referred to as “1940 Act”).

3.3. Consequently, this Court vide order dated 18.7.1991 appointed two arbitrators in the matter. The two arbitrators appointed to adjudicate the disputes that had erupted between the parties could not reach a consensus which led to an umpire being appointed in the matter.

3.4. The umpire, who is a retired judge of this Court made and published the award on 21.2.2000. In the award passed by the umpire, decree holder was awarded a sum of Rs.64,65,782/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The interest awarded was to run from 1.11.1991 till the date of realization. Besides this, costs were awarded in favour of the decree holder.

4. The judgment debtor, however, assailed the award and in this behalf filed petitions under Sections 30 and 33 of 1940 Act.

5. The learned Single Judge, partially allowed the petition preferred by the judgment debtor vide judgment dated 17.4.2007. The operative portion of this judgment reads as follows:

“...In view of the objections being disposed of aforesaid, the award is made Rule of the Court with the modifications referred to aforesaid. The petitioner is entitled to the principal amount of Rs.57,57,130/- with simple interest @ 18% per annum from 1.11.1991 till date of award and simple interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount from date of award till date of recovery. Parties are left to bear their own costs but the respondent is liable and shall remit the balance fee of the umpire of Rs. 1,08,000/- to the wife of the late umpire.

On failure to so pay within one month the amount be recovered in execution along with the other amounts by the petitioner to be remitted as aforesaid. A decreesheet be drawn up accordingly.”

6. Pertinently, one of the major modifications brought about by the learned Single Judge was concerning the rate of interest. Learned Single Judge ordered that interest would be paid at the rate of 18% on the award amount from 1.11.1991 till the date of award, that is, 21.2.2000. As regards future interest, the learned Single Judge scaled-down the interest from 18% to 12% per annum, which was to run from the date of the award till the date of its realization.

7. The judgment debtor carried the matter in an appeal to the Division Bench. This appeal was numbered as FAO (OS) No.211/2007. The Division Bench via an order dated 5.8.2008 admitted the appeal and on the application for stay (i.e., CM No.8654/2007) passed the following directions:

“...There shall be an interim stay of the impugned judgment dated 17th April 2007 of the learned Single Judge subjec