Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss.34 and 28 - Respondents had awarded works contract to the appellant - On ground of slow progress of the appellant-contractor, the respondents terminated the contract - Dispute -Appointment of sole arbitrator as per arbitration agreement contained in contract - Appellant filed statement of claims before the arbitrator - Respondents filed reply and also filed counter claims - Arbitrator awarded sum with interest and costs in favour of the appellant and rejected the counter claims of the respondents - Respondents filed application u/s.34 for setting aside the award - District Judge affirmed the award - Order reversed by the High Court in arbitration appeal filed by the respondents - The respondents' contention that the arbitrator had considered and allowed some claims which were 'excepted matters' and therefore, inarbitrable, that grant of some other claims by the arbitrator violated the express provisions of clause 10(cc) of the contract, and that the counter-claims of respondents were erroneously rejected, found favour with the High Court - Held: On facts, the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to try and decide all the claims of the appellant-contractor as also the claims of the respondents - Award of the Arbitrator on claims 1, 3 and 11 of the appellant-contractor has to be upheld and the conclusion of the High Court that award in respect of those claims had to be set aside as they related to excepted matters, cannot be sustained - Judgement of the High Court setting aside the award in regard to claims 2,4,6, 7,8 and 9 of the appellant also cannot be sustained since the award on those claims was upheld by the civil court and the High Court in appeal did not find any infirmity in regard thereto - Claim No. 5 was for payment of escalation under clause 10(cc) of the contract - The High Court erred in setting aside the award in regard to claim No.5 a/so - Once the Arbitrator recorded the finding that the contractor was not responsible for the delay and that the termination was wrongful and that the respondents were liable for the consequences arising out of the wrongful termination of contract, the question of respondents claiming any of the counter-claims from the contractor does not arise - Award of the Arbitrator rejecting the counter claims, therefore, upheld - Government Contract - Works Contract.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 34 and 28 - Arbitral award - Interference with - Jurisdiction of civil court to examine. validity of arbitral award - Held: A Civil Court examining the validity of an arbitral award u/s. 34 exercises supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction - A court can set aside an arbitral award, only if any of the grounds mentioned in ss.34(2)(a)(i) to (v) or s.34(2)(b)(i) and (ii), or s.28(1)(a) or 28(3) read with s.34(2)(b)(ii), are made out - An award adjudicating claims which are 'excepted matters' excluded from the scope of arbitration, would violate s.34(2)(a)(iv) and 34(2)(b) - Making an award allowing or granting a claim, contrary to any provision of the contract, would violate s.34(2)(b)(ii) read with s.28(3). Arbitration - Arbitral award dealing with and deciding several claims - Challenge to - Held: If an award deals with and decides several claims separately and distinctly, even .if the court finds that the award in regard to some items is bad, the court will segregate the award on items which did not suffer  from any infirmity and uphold the award to that extent. Contract - Breach of a condition of contract - Right to adjudication - Held: The question whether the other party committed breach cannot be decided by the party alleging breach - A contract cannot provide that one party will be the arbiter to decide whether he committed breach or the other party committed breach - That question can only be decided by an adjudicatory forum, that is, a court or an Arbitral Tribunal - Arbitration.