Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -claimant under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.98 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 91/96, whereby the court below has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant -claimant and made the award dated 6.4.96 passed by the Arbitrator, a rule of the court and further directed the respondent to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till realisation. After having heard the learned counsel Mr. G.C. Garg for the appellant for some time, the learned counsel Mr. Ajay Tyagi appearing for the respondent had drawn the attention of the court to the receipt dated 19.4.99 given on behalf of the appellant, produced by the respondent alongwith the reply, acknowledging the payment of Rs. 5,66,637/ - by way of full and final payment. The learned counsel Mr. Ajay Tyagi for the respondent relying upon the said receipt has submitted that in view of the payment accepted by the appellant towards full and final payment, the present appeal does not survive. However, the learned counsel Mr. G.C. Garg for the appellant relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2009) 10 SCC 187 submitted that the appellant was entitled to the interest for all the three stages, pre -reference, pendente lite and post award which the Arbitrator had not awarded.
(2.) THERE cannot be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, which states that the Arbitrator has the powers to award interest for all the three stages i.e. pre -reference, pendente lite and post award. However, in the present case pending the present appeal the appellant had admittedly accepted the amount as shown in the receipt produced on record, towards full and final settlement, and hence it is presumed that an amicable settlement had taken place between the parties. It is pertinent to note that the said payment was accepted by the appellant without any protest and the appellant had not reserved any right to continue with the appeal so far as the interest part is concerned. In that view of the matter, the present appeal does not survive and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.;