Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The contracts in question contained a specific clause (Clause 11(C)) that barred claims for compensation arising from delays when extensions were granted due to those delays. The arbitrator awarded damages for delays despite this clause, exceeding his jurisdiction (!) (!) .

2. The court held that the claims for delay damages were unsustainable because they conflicted with Clause 11(C) of the contracts, which explicitly prohibited such claims in cases of extensions granted due to delays (!) (!) .

3. The arbitrator's failure to adhere to Clause 11(C) was considered a legal misconduct, as he acted outside his jurisdiction by awarding damages contrary to the contractual provisions (!) (!) .

4. The court emphasized that arbitrators are bound by the terms of the contract and cannot decide matters beyond the scope of the reference or outside the contractual limits. Exceeding this scope results in an award being liable to be set aside (!) .

5. The court affirmed that the arbitrator's awards for delay damages were invalid because they disregarded the contractual clause that specifically barred such claims, and therefore, the awards were rightly set aside by the High Court (!) (!) .

6. The appeals challenging the setting aside of the delay damages awards were dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs (!) .

In essence, the key legal principles are that contractual clauses prohibiting claims for delay damages must be strictly enforced, and arbitrators must act within the bounds of the contract. Any deviation or decision outside these bounds constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting setting aside of awards.