The participation of a party in arbitration proceedings without raising any objection to the Arbitrator's jurisdiction amounts to waiver/estoppel/acquiescence, barring the party from challenging the Arbitrator's jurisdiction at a later stage.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 of the Act speaks for certain conditions under which the recourse of the Court against an arbitral award may be obtained by way of making an application for setting aside the arbitral award. At the inception it is to be said that unlike the Arbitration Act, 1940, scope and ambit of setting aside the Arbitrator's award under the new Act is very limited. It operates as good as decree. Therefore, the Court would be very slow in interfering with it unless an exceptional circumstances exists which can lead to a position of nullifying the claim. This is settled principle of law that unless and until the award seems to be bad from the fact of it, it should not be interferred with as an appeal from such award to adjudge the mental process of the Arbitrator. Such well settled principle of law practically codified by giving a rigid parameters of consideration under new Act so that the Court may not be unnecessarily burdened with such litigations when the parties themselves choose their own forum.

( 2 ) THE fact remains that by consent of the parties, this Court was pleased to appoint Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent-Company as Arbitrator. From the order of the Court dated 11/05/1998, it appears that the Arbitrator was directed to proceed expeditiously and in summary manner so that there should not be any delay in disposing the matter. The Arbitrator was directed to adjudicate the claims and counter claims to be REFERRED TO him by the parties. In turn, when the matter was REFERRED TO the Arbitrator, the following issues as settled between the parties, were framed:-1 (A) Was the Claimant asked by the Respondent to bring the dredger at G. R. S. E. (Main) for dredging work three months prior to 12/03/1997. It so, whether any work was allotted to the claimant? 1 (b) Is the claimant entitled to Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rupees One thousand only) per day during the idle period? 2 (a) Whether any or all of the terms and conditions specified in the agreement dated 10/07/1999 are opposed to any statutory law or public policy or hit by principles of unequal bargaining? 2 (b) Whether the contract dated 10/07/1997 is legal, valid and binding upon the parties? 3. Whether the minutes of the joint meeting dated 5/12/1997 have been waived or violated by the Respondent? 4 (a) Whether the unilateral termination of the contract dated 10/07/1997 by the Respondent was proceeded by a legal and valid notice? 4 (b) Whether termination of the contract dated 10/07/1997 by the respondent by issuing letters dated 8th Jan. 1998 and 18/04/1998 are legal and valid? 5. Whether the claimant is guilty of any breach of the terms of the contract dated 10/07/1997? 6. Whether the Respondent is guilty of any breach and/or violation of the terms of the contract dated 10/07/1997? 7. Whether the Respondent is guilty of waiver, acquiescence or any other principles of law and equity? 8. Whether the Claimants are entitled to their claims set out in para (1) to (h) at pages 14 and 15 of their statements of claim or any part thereof? 9. Whether the Respondents are entitled to their claims set out in para 40 (a) to 40 (d) at pages 16 to 18 of their counter statement of facts and counter claims of any part thereof? 10. To what other reliefs, including interests, the parties are entitled to? 11. Whether the claimant is entitled to interim arbitral award of Rs. 5,85,322. 40 and whether the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, at Calcutta?

( 3 ) OUT of all the issues, leaving aside the issue No. 2 (a) or at best 2 (b) as above, all other issues are either relating to question of fact or mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be spelt out by this Court in an application under S. 34 of the Act unlike an appeal. The award is a speaking award. The rest are discussed hereunder :issue Nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b)