JUDGMENT : Sanjay Dhar, J. 1. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned interim Award dated 04.01.2020 passed by the sole Arbitrator, the operative part of which is as under: “From the documents submitted during Arbitral Proceedings, it is prima facie proved that the respondent placed order after proper inspection of BAMI which were supplied to him by the claimant. The dispute between the parties arose later on. What will be the fate of the Arbitral proceedings, cannot be said at this stage but it is prima facie established by the claimant that he is entitled to interim award at this stage amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- (five crores and fifty lakhs only) under the provisions of Section 31 (6) of the Act which comes to approximately 8% of the total claims of the claimant. The respondent is directed to pay the said amount of interim award within a period of two weeks from today. In default of payment, the respondent shall be liable to pay the said amount along with interest @ 90% per annum from the date of interim award till payment is made. No further proceedings are required in this application and it shall form part of the main file.” 2. Briefly stated the case of the respondent-firm before the learned Arbitrator was that being a supplier of defence equipments to the Indian Army and Para Military Forces, it was given a contract for supply of 6250 pairs of Boot Anti Mine Infantry (hereinafter referred to as ‘BAMI’) in terms of Order No. 21023/Supply order/110 (C/ACSFO/45) dated 01.03.2018. As per clause Part IV i.e. Special conditions of supply order of the Tender Agreement, the appellant herein had to make the payment to the respondent-firm instantly. For facility of reference, the said clause is reproduced hereunder: “100% payment will be made on delivery and acceptance by the use and on production of the requisite documents.” 3. It was further alleged by the respondent-firm that in the instant case, no payment has been made to the said firm till date. The respondent-firm had taken credit limit from the Axis Bank for the aforesaid supply and because of the delay in the payment, it has suffered a grave financial hardship. That apart, the Bank aforesaid was ready to initiate action for declaring the respondent-firm as NPA under the Securitization Act. The respondent-firm had taken credit limit from the Axis Bank for the aforesaid supply and because of the delay in the payment, it has suffered a grave financial hardship. That apart, the Bank aforesaid was ready to initiate action for declaring the respondent-firm as NPA under the Securitization Act. The respondent-firm is stated to be paying huge interest to the Bank for non payment of loan amount and has paid a total amount of Rs.1,94,00,000/- as interest from July 2018 to September, 2019. The claimant has also pledged his property with the Bank. 4. Before the Arbitrator, it was contended by the respondent-firm that it was in urgent need of Rs.5,50,00,000/- against the outstanding payment of Rs.,16,80,00,000/- as interim relief so that the Bank would not declare it as NPA. It was prayed that the interim award of Rs.5,50,00,000/- be passed in favour of the respondent-claimant. 5. The claim of respondent-firm was contested by the petitioner and in its objections, it pleaded that the interim relief sought by the respondent-firm cannot be granted as in terms of the third amendment which was issued to the supply order, the respondent-firm was required to submit certain additional documents along with the bill. The said condition was primarily imposed after the special procurement committee’s meeting held on 23rd May 2018 in the presence of representatives of the respondent-firm. In the said meeting, certain violations committed by the respondent-firm came to light which were also admitted by the representatives of the respondent-firm, who were present during the meeting. The said violations were as under: (i) For 2015-16 procurement of 1800 BAMI Shoes they procured the shoes at a CIF value of approximately Rs.15,000/- per pair and they supplied the same at CIF value of Rs.21000/- thereby causing wrongful gain and wrongful loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.1.08 crores. (ii) Evasion of the mandatory Toll Tax for entering inside J&K at Lakhanpur, thereby smuggling the goods inside the erstwhile State of J&K. The representative of the claimant stated that they paid a toll tax of Rs.1.27 crore in cash which was not supported by any receipt of the same. (iii) Non submission of proof regarding payment of Rs.32.40 lakhs claimed and paid to firm from Central Sales Tax against Supply order 21023/Supply Order/110©/ACSFP/24 dated 29 October 2015. (iii) Non submission of proof regarding payment of Rs.32.40 lakhs claimed and paid to firm from Central Sales Tax against Supply order 21023/Supply Order/110©/ACSFP/24 dated 29 October 2015. (iv) Not paying the income tax to the government on the profit earned and wrong IT return of the company. Thereby, the claimant firm willfully evaded payment of income tax.” 6. It was submitted by the petitioner before the Arbitrator that due to non submission of correct documents by the respondent-firm, delay in processing the bills had occurred. It was further submitted that certain complaints were received by the petitioner with regard to the shoes supplied by the respondent firm to the effect that several mine blast incidents had taken place, due to which the wearers of the shoes have lost limbs/suffered amputation. Accordingly, the petitioner had issued defect report on 01.02.2019 to the respondent-firm highlighting failure of the BAMI in terms of DPM. It was submitted that as per the General Staff Qualitative Requirement, the BAMI should provide protection to the feet of the wearer. It also prescribed that average peak pressure transmitted through the boot to the foot of the wearer by the detonation of any blast type anti personnel would be less than 160 kg/cm. It was then submitted that any financial hardship suffered by the respondent-firm was due to its own misconduct as it had supplied substandard quality of BAMI which never met the GSQR leading to amputations/loss of limbs in mine blast incidents and, therefore, the respondent-firm was not entitled to any interim relief. 7. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sole Arbitrator vide its order dated 04.01.2020 observed that the respondent-firm had supplied 6250 pairs of BAMI to the petitioner and the BAMI successfully qualified the blast test and field trials of the Technical Evaluation done by the TEC constituted by the petitioner. It was further observed that the BAMI supplied by the respondent-firm were also inspected physically by the Inspection and Acceptance Board constituted by the petitioner. On this reasoning, the Sole Arbitrator held the respondent-firm entitled to interim award amounting to Rs.5,50,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 31(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’). The said amount was directed to be paid to the respondent-firm within a period of two weeks from the passing of the award. On this reasoning, the Sole Arbitrator held the respondent-firm entitled to interim award amounting to Rs.5,50,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 31(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’). The said amount was directed to be paid to the respondent-firm within a period of two weeks from the passing of the award. It is this award which is under challenge in this petition. 8. Before this Court also, the petitioner has reiterated the arguments which it had urged before the sole Arbitrator. It is submitted that a number of complaints were received against the respondent-firm highlighting various acts of financial irregularities committed by it during the financial year 2015-16 in which a few mala fide trade practices committed by it came to light. It is further submitted that various mine blast injuries to the persons using BAMI supplied by the respondent-firm were reported and in certain cases, the injuries suffered were so serious that it resulted in amputation of limbs of the soldiers while carrying out operational tasks. Therefore, the BAMI shoes supplied by the respondent-firm were in contravention to the General Staff Qualitative Requirements. It is lastly submitted that the respondent-firm has miserably failed to discharge its contractual obligation to supply BAMI in accordance with laid down GSQR in the Supply Order. Prayer is, thus, made to set aside the impugned interim award. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-firm has submitted that the firm had supplied the requisite pairs of BAMI and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the petitioner was bound to make payment upon delivery and acceptance of the supply which it has failed to do. It is further urged that, on frivolous and flimsy grounds, the petitioner has withheld the payment due to the respondent/firm and, as such, the learned Arbitrator, after finding a prima facie case in favour of the respondent/firm, passed the interim award in its favour. 10. The impugned award as is clear from its operative portion has been made by the Arbitrator in exercise of his power under Section 31(6) of the Act of 1996. 10. The impugned award as is clear from its operative portion has been made by the Arbitrator in exercise of his power under Section 31(6) of the Act of 1996. It would be profitable to quote the said provision to understand its scope: “Section 31(6) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 The arbitral tribunal may, at any time during the arbitral proceedings, make an interim arbitral award on any matter with respect to which it may make a final arbitral award.” 11. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the arbitral Tribunal may, during the arbitral proceedings, make an interim arbitral award on any matter regarding which it may make a final arbitral award. 12. The question now arises as to under what circumstances an interim award can be passed and what are the parameters for passing such an award during the arbitration proceedings. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of IFFCO Ltd vs. M/S Bhadra Products, (2018) 2 SCC 534 has held that under Section 31 (6) of the Act of 1996, the jurisdiction to make an interim arbitral award is left to the good sense of the arbitral Tribunal, and that it extends to “any matter” with respect to which it may make a final arbitral award. The Court further observed that the expression “matter” is wide in nature, and subsumes issues at which the parties are in dispute. Therefore, any point of dispute between the parties which has to be answered by the arbitral Tribunal can be the subject matter of an interim arbitral award. The Court went on to observe that an interim award 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. 14. Bombay High Court, in the case of Sphere International vs. Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd., 2020 (1) R.A.J. 90, has, while explaining the scope of interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act of 1996 observed as under: “99. 14. Bombay High Court, in the case of Sphere International vs. Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd., 2020 (1) R.A.J. 90, has, while explaining the scope of interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act of 1996 observed as under: “99. In my view, the interim award under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act can be made by the arbitral tribunal only if the alleged admission or acknowledgement of the liability on the part of the respondent before the arbitral tribunal is clear, unambiguous and definite and does not require any evidence to prove such admission at the stage of trial. If there are serious disputed questions raised by the respondent in the arbitral proceedings about the claim made by the claimant which requires detailed evidence at the stage of trial, the arbitral tribunal can not exercise its discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to make any interim award.” 15. From the foregoing enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that an interim award cannot be equated to an interim order that can be passed by an arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996. 16. There is a clear distinction between the powers of an arbitral Tribunal to pass orders by way of an interim measures in terms of Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996 and an interim award in terms of Section 31 (6) of the said Act. While passing an order under Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996, an arbitral Tribunal will be justified in considering the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and similar other factors at the time of passing such an order, while making an interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act, the arbitral Tribunal has to be satisfied that in its opinion there is an admission or acknowledgment of liability on the part of the party against which the award is proposed to be made. Such an admission should be clear, unambiguous and definite and should not require any evidence to prove at the stage of the trial. Serious disputed questions raised by any party in the arbitral proceedings cannot be determined by the arbitral Tribunal at the time of passing of an interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act of 1996. Such an admission should be clear, unambiguous and definite and should not require any evidence to prove at the stage of the trial. Serious disputed questions raised by any party in the arbitral proceedings cannot be determined by the arbitral Tribunal at the time of passing of an interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act of 1996. So, the parameters of passing an interim award under Section 31 (6) of the said Act are quite distinct from the parameters required for passing an order under Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996. 17. Coming to the impugned interim award, a perusal of the same reveals that the learned Arbitrator, while passing the said award, has taken into consideration the factors, like prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, but the Tribunal has not given any finding as to whether there is any admission of claim on the part of the petitioner herein. 18. In para No. 17 of the interim award, the learned Arbitrator has, after noting the rival contentions of the parties, observed that it is prima facie established that claimant (respondent herein) has supplied the requisite pairs of boots to petitioner herein, whereafter it has gone on to note that petitioner (respondent therein) has relied upon a report of TBRL Chandigarh (exhibit 33), according to which, there were certain defects in the supplied goods. The learned Arbitrator has also observed that the merits of the rival contentions of the parties will be determined during the arbitral proceedings. However, the learned Arbitrator has not recorded as to whether there was any admission on the part of the petitioner herein during the arbitral proceedings and if so, what part of claim was admitted by the petitioner herein. Without there being a finding on this aspect of the matter, it was not open to the ld. Arbitrator to pass an interim award in favour of the respondent-firm simply because it was reeling under the burden of loan and interest accruing thereon. Without there being a finding on this aspect of the matter, it was not open to the ld. Arbitrator to pass an interim award in favour of the respondent-firm simply because it was reeling under the burden of loan and interest accruing thereon. The Arbitrator, as already noted, was not deciding an application under Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996, but it was deciding an application under section 31 (6) of the said Act and, as such, it has landed itself into an error by applying the parameters necessary for passing an order under Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996 to the instant case. 19. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the learned Arbitrator has, while passing the impugned interim award, committed a patent illegality appearing on the face of it and, thus, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned interim award passed by the Arbitrator is quashed and set aside. The application of respondent-firm for grant of interim award is remanded back to the Arbitrator with a direction that the same be considered afresh on merits and a decision thereon be taken in the light of parameters laid down for making an interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act of 1996 as discussed hereinbefore. The record of the Arbitrator with a copy of this judgment be sent back.