ORDER Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Short point involved in this appeal is whether interim award passed by a Arbitral Tribunal would get merged with the final award or not? and, if it merges, the effect of such merger. 3. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this appeal by the Union of India can be crystallised as under: Respondent herein filed a claim statement before Arbitral Tribunal in respect of an agreement dated 04.08.1999 and Arbitral Tribunal passed an interim award on 27.02.2001 directing refund of ‘vitiation amount’ with interest at 18% p.a. payable after 30 days from the date of publication of interim award in terms of Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996, Act’). Thereafter final award came to be passed on 21.01.2005 awarding a total sum of Rs.8,83,085/with simple interest at 8% p.a. payable, if paid beyond 45 days. 4. Union of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘UOI’) being aggrieved by the interim award, preferred O.P.No.469/2002 under Section 34 of the 1996, Act before High Court of Madras and during the pendency of said O.P.No.469/2002, arbitration proceedings got concluded and final award came to be passed on 21.01.2005. Being aggrieved by the final award, UOI preferred O.P.No.315/2006 under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before High Court of Madras and both petitions namely, O.P.Nos.469/2002 and 315/2006 were heard together and by order dated 08.06.2007, both petitions came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order, UOI filed O.S.A.Nos.463 & 464/2009 before Division Bench, which also came to be dismissed by the High Court of Madras by order dated 30.04.2010. Said orders have become final and there is no dispute with regard to this fact. On dismissal of these two appeals, UOI made a payment of Rs.53,05,450/to the claimant which came to be acknowledged, received and ‘no claim certificate’ came to be issued by the claimant stating that there are no claims outstanding whatsoever on the matter referred to in the arbitration agreement. 5. On dismissal of these two appeals, UOI made a payment of Rs.53,05,450/to the claimant which came to be acknowledged, received and ‘no claim certificate’ came to be issued by the claimant stating that there are no claims outstanding whatsoever on the matter referred to in the arbitration agreement. 5. UOI had made payment as referred to hereinabove in terms of the award and has calculated the interest @ 18% p.a. from 27.02.2001 (from date of interim award) till 21.01.2005 (date of final award) insofar as interim award is concerned and at the rate of 8% p.a. from 21.01.2005 (date of final award) to 16.10.2010 (date of payment) on the said interim award apart from satisfying the entire amount awarded under final award with interest as had been ordered. 6. Claimant not being satisfied with amounts received, filed Execution Petition No.1045/2013 claiming a sum of Rs.15,84,278/as per memo of calculation filed along with execution petition. Said amount claimed by the claimant related to interest portion only namely, claimant contended that it is entitled to receive interest @ 18% p.a. on the interim award from the date of interim award i.e., 27.02.2001 till payment i.e., 16.10.2010. 7. On service of notice, UOI – judgment debtor appeared and filed its statement of objections contending that they are not liable to pay amount as claimed in the execution petition and interest @ 18% p.a. which was awarded under the interim award dated 27.02.2001 had got merged with the final award dated 21.01.2005 and in the final award, interest that has been awarded is only 8% p.a., as such, UOI attempted to stave off of its liability to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on interim award after passing of the final award by filing a detailed statement of objections to the execution petition. After considering rival contentions raised by respective learned Advocates, Executing Court formulated following points for its adjudication: “(1) Whether the decree holder proves that the Judgment Debtors are still liable to pay Rs.15,84,278.34ps. as shown in the Memo of calculations? After considering rival contentions raised by respective learned Advocates, Executing Court formulated following points for its adjudication: “(1) Whether the decree holder proves that the Judgment Debtors are still liable to pay Rs.15,84,278.34ps. as shown in the Memo of calculations? (2) What order?” Executing Court held that interim award is an independent award and there is no specific mention in the final award that interim award had merged with the final award and as such, UOI is liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the interim award also and accordingly, upheld memo of calculation filed by the decree holder which was in accordance with interim award passed by Arbitration Tribunal dated 27.02.2001 and rejected the objections raised by UOI vide order dated 11.04.2014. It is this order, which is challenged by UOI – in this revision petition. 8. It is contended by Sri Abhinay, learned Advocate appearing for UOI that execution petition itself is not maintainable since decree holder had issued a ‘no claim certificate’ acknowledging the receipt of the amount paid to him by Judgment debtor on 16.12.2010 which was in full and final settlement of award and he had also executed an indemnity bond agreeing to indemnify Railways on payments released to him towards full settlement of the Arbitration award and as such, decree holder was not entitled to raise any further dispute by filing present execution petition in question that too after a lapse of four (4) years after he had received the amounts. He would also contend that final award dated 21.01.2005 clearly indicates at paragraph 1.10 at item No.10 that interim award published on 27.02.2001 would form part of final award and as such, interim award had got merged with the final award and calculation of interest on the interim award would only be @ 8% p.a. as awarded in the final award (21.01.2005) and not @ 18% p.a. as claimed by the claimant. He would contend when claimant had issued No Objection Certificate acknowledging the receipt for amount of Rs.53,05,450/on 16.12.2010 and had executed an indemnity bond agreeing to indemnifying the UOI – Railways in respect of claims arising out of payment released towards full settlement of arbitration award, no further claim is maintainable. He contends there is complete satisfaction of the award amount as awarded by Arbitral Tribunal and as such, Execution petition itself was not maintainable. He contends there is complete satisfaction of the award amount as awarded by Arbitral Tribunal and as such, Execution petition itself was not maintainable. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court by allowing this revision petition. 9. Per contra, Sri Bhanuprakash, learned Advocate appearing for the claimant would support the order passed by the Executing Court and contends that when the interim award is an independent award and same being executable independently, it would stand on its own leg and mere passing of final award would not eclipse the interim award and as such, UOI having challenged the interim award independently by filing a separate and distinct petition under Section 34 of 1996, Act and later on appeal under Section 37 of the 1996, Act and same having been dismissed, cannot now contend that interim award had got merged with the final award and as such, it is not liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. as ordered in the interim award. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following judgments: (1) AIR 1999 SC 2040 SATWANT SINGH SODHI vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS. (2) (2006) 11 SCC 181 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. BURN STANDARD CO.LTD & OTHERS. (3) AIR 2003 BOMBAY 296 HARINARAYAN SHAREDEAL CONSULTANTS ANOTHER G. BAJAJ vs FINANCIAL PVT. LTD. & (4) 2011(3) ARB.L.R. 382 (MADRAS) GAMMON INDIA LTD. vs SANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTION (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD. (5) 2005(2)ARB.LR 172 (DELHI) NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORTAION LTD (NTPC) vs. SIEMENS ATIENGESELLSHAFT (SAG) 10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the order challenged in this revision petition, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether furnishing or issuance of ‘No Claim Certificate’ by the claimant would bar or prevent the claimant from realizing the amounts alleged to be due to it under the awards dated 27.02.2001 and 21.01.2005? (2) Whether the interim award dated 27.02.2001 is a separate, distinct and independent award and UOI is liable to pay interest as ordered thereon from date of award till date of payment? (2) Whether the interim award dated 27.02.2001 is a separate, distinct and independent award and UOI is liable to pay interest as ordered thereon from date of award till date of payment? OR Whether the interim award dated 27.02.2001 has got merged with the final award dated 21.01.2005 whereunder interest ordered to be paid under interim award being 18% p.a. would get merged in the final award dated 21.01.2005 and as such, judgment debtor would be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. even on amount awarded under interim award dated 27.02.2001? (3) What order? 11 BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: 11. Claimant had sought for payment of certain amounts, which was said to be due to it from the respondent/revision petitioner in respect of agreement dated 04.08.1999 contending interalia that amounts due to it and payable by UOI – Railways had not been settled. Parties to the agreement being ad idem with reference to arbitration agreement resorted to arbitration at the instance of claimant and claim petition was filed raising 10 claims. One such claim related to vitiation amount. Said issue came to be taken up by the arbitral Tribunal at the preliminary stage itself and said claim came to be adjudicated and held as under: “Taking the totality of the circumstances obtaining in this case, the Tribunal make this interim award that, the recoveries made towards ‘vitiation’ from the contract or for the work done so far, bere funded with out interest for the periods with held and further payments be regulated as per the rates agreed to between the contract or and the Railway administration, without invoking the ‘vitiation’ clause. Payment towards this award is to be made within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of this award and beyond this period, interest at the rate of 18% per annum will accrue to the award in terms of section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” In terms of the above finding recorded, Arbitral Tribunal passed an interim award on 27.02.2001 directing respondent Railways to refund the amounts received from claimant towards vitiation amount within 30 days and from the date of publication and beyond this period, it was ordered that interest will accrue @ 18% p.a. in terms of Section 31(7) (b) of the Act. Said interim award came to be duly published on 27.02.2001. Said interim award came to be duly published on 27.02.2001. Thereafter, final award came to be passed by the arbitral Tribunal on 21.01.2005 whereunder remaining 9 claims came to be adjudicated and in respect of each claim, award came to be passed and summary of the award is as under: (Figs. in Units of Rs.) Claim No. Description Amount claimed as per the terms of reference Amount awarded 1 Earthwork: Payment for mobilization of machinery etc. due to reduction less than 25% 20,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 2 Earthwork done for filling 1,76,000.00 47,338.00 3 a) Piling up to 9 M b) Piling above 9M c) Piling above 15 M 8,06,400.00 14,17,430.00 5,40,000.00 25,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4 Due to change in design of piling cap per shaft abutment etc., 8,00,000.00 1,20,000.00 5 a) Extra rate for concreting PSC girders due to change in span arrangements b) Payment for new items for extra rate for high tensile steel due to reduction in quantities. 35,52,000.00 35,52,000.00 1,50,000.00 50,000.00 6 New item: for concreting for retaining wall with new design 34,20,000.00 1,40,747.00 7 Payment for new item for ready mix concrete 6,07,500.00 Nil 8 Compensation for overhead 6,80,650.00 50,000.00 9 Interest as the funds invested Not quantified 1,00,000.00 10 Scope and applicability of vitiation clause Interim award published on 27/2/2001. The same forms part of this final award Total 1,75,51,980.00 8,83,085.00 (Amount awarded: Rupees Eight Lakhs eighty three thousand eighty five only) 12. Insofar as claim No.10 is concerned, it has been held in the final award that interim award published on 27.02.2001 would form part of final award. Undisputedly, interim award dated 27.02.2001 as well as final award dated 21.01.2005 was the subject matter of consideration in appeal as O.S.A.Nos.469/2002 and 315/2006 before High Court of Madras which ended in dismissal vide order dated 08.06.2007 and same had attained finality. Pursuant to dismissal of the appeals filed by it, UOI – Railways settled the claim by making payment of Rs.53,05,450.27 on 16.12.2010 to claimant. Said amount came to be quantified by UOI – Railways by calculating interest on the interim award @ 18% p.a. from the date of interim award dated 27.02.2001 till date of final award dated 21.01.2005 and @ 8% p.a. from 21.01.2005 till date of payment i.e., on 16.12.2010 on amount awarded under interim award. Said amount came to be quantified by UOI – Railways by calculating interest on the interim award @ 18% p.a. from the date of interim award dated 27.02.2001 till date of final award dated 21.01.2005 and @ 8% p.a. from 21.01.2005 till date of payment i.e., on 16.12.2010 on amount awarded under interim award. At the time of receiving the payment, claimant has issued a ‘no claim certificate’ acknowledging receipt of said amount in full and final settlement and has also executed an indemnity bond indemnifying the Railways towards release of subject amount towards full and final settlement of arbitration award. RE: POINT NO(1): 13. In view of ‘No claim certificate’ issued by the claimant on 15.10.2010, it has been contended by UOI Railways that claimant has received the award amount in full and final settlement and having agreed, there is no claim against Railways; Decree holder is estopped from making any further claim and as such, execution petition was not maintainable at all. 14. Sri Bhanuprakash, learned Advocate appearing for claimant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.L.KALATHIA AND CO. vs. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in AIR 2011 SC 754 to contend that mere issuance of ‘Noclaim Certificate’ or ‘No Due Certificate’ by a claimant would not amount to full payment to a contractor and such clause does not bar a contractor raising claims which are genuine at a later date even after submission of such ‘no claim certificate’. Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case had examined as to whether ‘Noclaim Certificate’ issued by a contractor would debar him from disputing the correctness of items covered by Noclaim certificate or would disentitle such party from raising further claims. It came to be held as under: “9. From the above conclusions of this Court, the following principles emerge: (i) Merely because the contractor has issued “No Due Certificate”, if there is acceptable claim, the court cannot reject the same on the ground of issuance of “No Due Certificate”. (ii) Inasmuch as it is common that unless a discharge certificate is given in advance by the contractor, payment of bills are generally delayed, hence such a clause in the contract would not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising claims which are genuine at a later date even after submission of such “No—Claim Certificate”. (ii) Inasmuch as it is common that unless a discharge certificate is given in advance by the contractor, payment of bills are generally delayed, hence such a clause in the contract would not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising claims which are genuine at a later date even after submission of such “No—Claim Certificate”. (iii) Even after execution of full and final discharge voucher/receipt by one of the parties, if the said party able to establish that he is entitled to further amount for which he is having adequate materials, is not barred from claiming such amount merely because of acceptance of the final bill by mentioning “without prejudice” or by issuing “No Due Certificate”. In the said case, it came to be noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when final bill was submitted, plaintiff therein had accepted the amount as mentioned in the final bill under protest, as such, it came to be held that merely because plaintiff had accepted the final bill claimant cannot be deprived of its right to claim damages if it had incurred additional amount and able to prove the same by acceptable materials. On facts, Hon’ble Apex Court had found in the said case, there was genuine claim made by the claimant which came to be considered in great detail by the trial Court and found that suit claim related to extra work like excavation, construction of guide bunds, pitching work etc., and as such decree passed by the trial Court came to be affirmed by reversing the judgment of High Court of Gujarat. 15. It is no doubt true that until and unless ‘No Claim certificate’ is issued by a contractor, amounts covered under the bill or award as the case may be would not be paid to such contractor. Issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’ by a contractor in most of the cases would be condition precedent for making payment and such clause would find a place in most of the agreements. Whether issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’ ipso facto would bar such contractor from claiming any further amounts due to it requires to be examined on case to case basis and there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. 16. Whether issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’ ipso facto would bar such contractor from claiming any further amounts due to it requires to be examined on case to case basis and there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. 16. In a given case, payment would not materialize until and unless ‘No Due Certificate’ is issued and mere acceptance of the amount in final bill or issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’ in anticipation of the amount to be received under the final bill would not debar a contractor or claimant from raising a legitimate claim. Further, in a given case like the one in hand, if the amount is being quantified, parties to the lis being aware of such quantification, payee cannot be heard to contend that even after such quantification, it would be entitled to claim further amounts after receiving the amount and issuing ‘No Due Certificate’. Contents of No Claim Certificate issued in the instant case, reads as under: “NO CLAIM CERTIFICATE Received the sum of Rs.53,05,450.27 Construction of RUB with 2736.1 m clear span of PSC Box Girder at Km.10/34 near Lottegollahalli between Yeshwanthapur and Yelahanka stations – Bangalore – Dharmavaram section. Agt. No: CAO/CN/71117/A of 04.08.1999. With this payment, there are no claims outstanding whatsoever on the matter referred to arbitration in the agreement mentioned in the subject above.” 17. A perusal of contents of ‘No Due Certificate’ would leave no doubt in the mind of this Court that amount that was being paid to claimant was in respect of agreement referred to therein and it would also indicate that there are no claims outstanding whatsoever on the matter referred to in the arbitration agreement. As such, being aware of contents of ‘No Claim Certificate’, in the instant case claimant with open eyes affixed its signature to the same and received the amount indicated therein. As such, being aware of contents of ‘No Claim Certificate’, in the instant case claimant with open eyes affixed its signature to the same and received the amount indicated therein. Having received the said amount on 16.12.2010 no dispute was raised and for the first time after a period of five months i.e., on 25.04.2011, a communication was sent to the revision petitioner by claimant contending that after receipt of the cheque, proprietor of the claimant – company/firm had fallen sick and was not able to calculate the correct amount including interest awarded by the arbitral Tribunal and only on auditors pointing out the defect and being informed of short payment, claimant sought for details of calculation of award amount including interest amount. At this juncture, it would be necessary to observe that even in the ‘No Claim certificate’ dated 15.12.2010, original of which has been made available by learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner would indicate that there is no mention about same having been issued either “without prejudice” to the claimant’s right or “under protest”. In other words, it is acceptance simplicitor. 18. It is no doubt true that until and unless ‘No Claim Certificate’ is issued by the claimant, cheque would not be issued by the Railways since it has been agreed to between the parties, as such, under the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). However, it cannot be gainsaid by the claimant that it was not aware of the quantification of the amount specified in the ‘No Claim Certificate’, since claimant was also party to the arbitral proceedings as well as party to the proceedings initiated by Railways/UOI before High Court of Madras seeking for setting aside the arbitral award and as such, it was very well aware of the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and quantification done by the Arbitral Tribunal insofar as amounts claimed. Claimant having received cheque for Rs.53,05,457/on 16.12.2010 did not raise its objection for a period of five months. It is only when its auditors said to have pointed out the discrepancy, claimant sought for payment of the said amount namely, difference of amount relating to interest. Claimant having received cheque for Rs.53,05,457/on 16.12.2010 did not raise its objection for a period of five months. It is only when its auditors said to have pointed out the discrepancy, claimant sought for payment of the said amount namely, difference of amount relating to interest. As already noticed, judgment in R.L. KALATHIA’s case relied on by learned counsel appearing for claimant would not come to its rescue for the reason that in the said case, even while raising final bill, claimant had specifically and clearly stated therein that amount received by him was “under protest”. In the absence of such protest being lodged or claimant receiving the amount “without prejudice to its rights, cannot turn around and contend that calculation of interest by Railways is erroneous. In that view of the matter, point No.1 deserves to be answered in favour of revision petitioner and against claimant. As such, it has to be held that claimant was not entitled to maintain execution petition before the jurisdictional Court. RE : POINT NO.2: 19. Though point No.1 has been answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of revision petitioner, point No.2 becoming academic, same is also answered since it is found that said issue is coming up before trial Courts quite often. 20. Under Section 2(c) of 1996 Act, ‘arbitral award’ has been defined to include an interim award also and said definition is not to be found in Arbitration Act, 1940. Clause (a) of Subsection (7) of Section 31 of 1996 Act, would indicate that Arbitral Tribunal while making award would include interest at such rate as it deems reasonable on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which award is made, would become payable namely, pendente lite interest. Clause (b) of subsection (7) of Section 31 of Act, 1996 would indicate that unless the award would indicate otherwise carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award to the date of payment. 21. Clause (b) of subsection (7) of Section 31 of Act, 1996 would indicate that unless the award would indicate otherwise carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award to the date of payment. 21. Undisputedly, in the case on hand, Arbitral Tribunal had passed an interim award dated 27.02.2001 relating to claim No.10 (vitiation amount) and it has been ordered under said award that recoveries made by Railways from “vitiation” amount of the contractor for the work done so far is to be refunded without interest for the periods withheld and further payments have to be regulated as per the rates agreed to between the contractor and the Railway administration without invoking ‘vitiation’ clause. It was further ordered that payment is to be made within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of award and beyond this period, interest @ 18% p.a. would accrue to the award in terms of Section 31(7)(b) of 1996 Act. In other words, Tribunal has held that in the event of payment of amount is not made by Railways to claimant within 30 days, it would carry interest @ 18% p.a. payable after 30 days till date of payment. 22. As to what would be the status of a interim award relating to one particular item of the claim which is covered under the interim award when final award is passed later excluding said item of claim came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SATWANT SINGH SODHI vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS reported in AIR 1999 SC 2040 . In the said case, learned Arbitrator passed an interim award allowing a sum of Rs. 7.45 lakhs in respect of claim arising out of item No.1. Subsequently, final award came to be passed awarding a sum of Rs.3.75 lakhs to all claimants in respect of other claims including item No.1. Trial Court held that insofar as item No.1 is concerned which was the subject matter of interim award had merged with final award. However, High Court reversed the said decision and when the matter came up before Hon’ble Apex Court, it came to be held as follows: “6. The question whether interim award is final to the extent it goes or has effect till the final award is delivered will depend upon the form of the award. However, High Court reversed the said decision and when the matter came up before Hon’ble Apex Court, it came to be held as follows: “6. The question whether interim award is final to the extent it goes or has effect till the final award is delivered will depend upon the form of the award. If the interim award is intended to have effect only so long as the final award is not delivered it will have the force of the interim award and it will cease to have effect after the final award is made. If, on the other hand, the interim award is intended to finally determine the rights of the parties it will have the force of a complete award and will have effect even after the final award is delivered.” As noticed hereinabove, Section 2(c) of 1996, Act uses the expression ‘interim award’ to define ‘award’. In contracts, by and large the terms ‘interim’ and ‘partial’ are used as interchangeable words. The effect of interim award requires to be gathered from the very award itself which depends on facts and circumstances of each case. If interim award by itself is enforceable, it is binding on the persons and parties claiming under them and it becomes executable as if it were a decree of the Court. It can also be said that if interim award decides and lays to rest an issue which becomes final and does not overlap with other issues to be determined under the final award, then such interim award becomes an independent award enforceable under the Act. The question as to whether interim award is final to the extent it is decided or has the effect till final award is delivered will depend upon the contents and form of interim award. If the interim award is intended to have the effect only as long as final award is not passed, it will have the force of interim award and it will cease to have effect after the final award is made or in other words, interim award would get merged with the final award or final award would eclipse the interim award. It in this background interim award that has been passed in the instant case requires to be examined. 23. It in this background interim award that has been passed in the instant case requires to be examined. 23. As already noticed herein above, interim award dated 27.02.2001 came to be passed relating to claim No.10 namely, recovery of amount made by Railways from claimant towards vitiation clause (10) namely, amount recovered pursuant to the vitiation clause and said issue having been adjudicated, determined and answered by the arbitral Tribunal, it reached finality and it is because of this precise reason Railways had filed a petition under Section 34 of 1996, Act challenging the correctness and legality of the said interim award in O.P.No.469/2002 and later on filed Original Second Appeal in OSA No.463/2009 before the High Court of Madras which subsequently ended in dismissal. Thus, Railways were fully aware and conscious that interim award passed in the instant case was independently enforceable, as such, it came to be challenged by it. 24. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. BURN STANDARD CO.LTD & OTHERS reported in (2006)11 SCC 181 was examining the validity of partial award. With reference to definition clause under Section 2(c) of 1996 Act, it came to be held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if partial award answers definition of the award as envisaged under Section 2(c) of the 1996, Act for all intent and purport, it would be a final award. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “44. The 1996 Act does not use the expression “partial award”. It uses interim award or final award. An award has been defined under Section 2(c) to include an interim award. Subsection (6) of Section 31 contemplates an interim award. An interim award in terms of the said provision is not one in respect of which a final award can be made, but it may be a final award on the matters covered thereby, but made at an interim stage. 45. The learned arbitrator evolved the aforementioned procedure so as to enable the parties to address themselves as regard certain disputes at the first instance. As would appear from the partial award of the learned arbitrator, he deferred some claims. He further expressed his hope and trust that in relation to some claims, the parties would arrive at some sort of settlement having regard to the fact that ONGC directly or indirectly was involved therein. As would appear from the partial award of the learned arbitrator, he deferred some claims. He further expressed his hope and trust that in relation to some claims, the parties would arrive at some sort of settlement having regard to the fact that ONGC directly or indirectly was involved therein. While in relation to some of the claims, a finality was attached to the award, certain claims were deferred so as to enable the learned arbitrator to advert thereto at a later stage. If the partial award answers the definition of the award, as envisaged under Section 2(c) of the 1996 Act, for all intent and purport, it would be a final award. In fact, the validity of the said award had also been questioned by BSCL by filing an objection in relation thereto.” 25. In the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and for the reasons discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that interim award dated 27.02.2001 partakes the character of full fledged award and it does not get merged in the final award and even if does, it will have independent legs to stand by itself and would be enforceable in law namely, under 1996, Act. Hence, point No.2 is answered against revision petitioner and in favour of respondent – claimant. RE: POINT NO. 3: 26. In view of point No.1 having been answered in favour of revision petitioner, present revision petition deserves to be accepted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Revision Petition is hereby allowed. (2) Order dated 11.04.2014 passed by XIX Addl. City Civil Judge & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Ex.P.No.1045/2013 is hereby set aside. (3) Execution Petition No.1045/2013 stands dismissed.