S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal is filed against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants Petition under section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1936 to set aside an award.

( 2 ) THE Appeal raises for consideration the scope of the power of the Court under section 34 of the 1996 act to interfere with the decision of an arbitral tribunal regarding their jurisdiction based on their interpretation of the arbitration agreement. We have come to the conclusion that this power is limited by the same principles and to the same extent as the power of the Court to interfere with the interpretation of an arbitral tribunal of any other contractual provision.

( 3 ) THE Respondent was the claimant before the sole arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings concluded under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the national Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSEIL ). The arbitrator awarded only the principal sum of rs. 3, 62, 738. 08 ps. to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. There was no challenge before the learned Single Judge and at the hearing before us regarding the award of this sum.

( 4 ) THE only contention urged before the learned single Judge and at the hearing before "us was that the Arbitrator erred in refusing to adjudicate the appellants claim for the cost of installation of, a terminal through V-SAT for the Respondent. The appellants contended that they obtained the permission to do so and paid a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- to the National Stock Exchange (N. S. E.) to install the system at the Respondents premises at Ahmedabad against which the Respondent paid the Appellant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- in due course. The appellant therefore sought an adjustment of this amount.

( 5 ) THE learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that under the arbitration clause only transactions carried out on the NEAT system of the NSE could be considered and, that the fippellants claim for the installation of the V-SAT did not fall within the ambit thereof. The Arbitrator held as under :"the Arbitrator specifically advised the Respondent that the present arbitration matter can only cover transactions carried out on the NEAT system of the NSE and as such the payment made by it at Rs. 3,25,000/- for installation of a VSAT cannot be part of its subject matter. the respondent was advised that its claim for balance amount outstanding for VSAT would have to be taken up and settled by it with the Membership Department of the NSE since it has stated to have already surrendered the same to the NSE. "

( 6 ) AS recorded in the award, the written submissions also contained a claim for the installation of the V-SAT system. The Arbitrator in paragraph 10 of the award therefore again observed that the rival contentions in that regard were not material in view of what had been held earlier.

( 7 ) THE effect of the above observations clearly is that the arbitrator considered the Appellants claim for the installation of the V-SAT system and held that he had no jurisdiction to decide the same. That this is the effect of the above observations is admitted. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Arbitrator wrongly held that he had no. jurisdiction to consider the said claim.

( 8 ) IT is necessary therefore at this stage to examine the arbitration clause pursuant to which the disputes and differences between the parties were referred to arbitration. Clause 1 pertaining to arbitration reads as under "fill claims, differences or disputes between the Trading members inter se and between -Trading Members and Constituents arising out of or in relation to dealings, contracts and transactions made subject to the bye-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto or in pursuance thereof or relating to their validity, construction, interpretation, fulfilment of the rights, obligations and liabilitie