- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant frankly stated that identical Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2010 has been dismissed by this Court (by me) vide order dated 25th July, 2011. However, while arguing the Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2010, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that there is specific provision under Sub-Section 7(a) and 7(b) of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which deals with the subject of award of interest and, therefore, the appeal of the appellant-State was dismissed vide order dated 25th July, 2011. Since it is a question of law, therefore, the order dated 25th July, 2011 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2010 cannot become res judicata nor there can be estoppel.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Clause 3.22 of the general conditions of the contract provides different contingencies and it deals with the contingency of only delayed payment and it nowhere deals with total non-payment by the State. It is also submitted that this clause nowhere prohibits the Arbitrator from awarding the interest and, therefore, Sub-Section 7(a) of Section 31 of the Act of 1996 has no application.;