Surinder Singh Nijjar, CJ.: This Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th of December, 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the arbitrator in making the arbitration award and accepting the challenge to the award of interest.

2. At the outset we may notice that the challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge is limited to the findings on the issue of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator based on Clause 63(3)(a)(iii) of the General Conditions that governs railway contract.

3. We may notice here the relevant facts as pleaded in the arbitration petition. A tender enquiry was floated inviting tenders from various job contractors for execution of various jobs relating to Eastern Railways. The respondent participated in the tender and was duly awarded the contract. The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted after negotiations. A formal agreement entered into between the parties on 2nd November. 2000. It is not disputed before us that the contract was governed by General Conditions of Contract, 1969 together with up to date correction slips. The contract specifically provided as follows:

"The Genl. Conditions of contract will mean the Genl. Conditions of contract as amended and or corrected from time to time as mentioned in clause 15 under condition of tender. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor before submitting his tender to ascertain all amendments and/or corrections made to the general conditions of contract."

4. It appears that innumerable Correction slips have been issued by the Railway Authority which are deemed to be incorporated in terms of General Conditions of Contract, 1969.

5. It is not disputed before us that the total value of the job work/contract was Rs. 25,71,838.63/- and the stipulated period of completion was six months form the date of issue of letter of acceptance. The period of time was extended at the request of respondent. It is also claimed that respondent failed to complete the job work and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to close the contract under Clause 60(1) of the General Condition of Contract, 1969 as amended and updated from time to time (herein after referred to as GCC). The petitioner claims that the respondent failed to participate in final measurement/assessment of the work and instead raised various false, fictitious claims. In spite of not completing the job the respondent made repeated claims for compensation on the ground of alleged loss suffered by it by reason of the wrongful closure of the contract by the petitioner. Disputes having arisen between the parties respondent demanded adjudication by arbitration in terms of Clauses 63 and 64 of the GCC. The petitioner declined to make the reference claiming that closure of contract under Clause 60(1) was within the "excepted matters." The matters with regard to measurement issues fell within Clauses 45 and 45 (a) of GCC and were also covered under "the excepted matters".

6. The dispute not having been referred to arbitration by the petitioner, the respondent moved an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act for short) in this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. The arbitration petition was contested by the Railway Authority. By an order dated April 26, 2002, the application was allowed and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for appointment of Arbitrator. By order dated September 26, 2002 the Chief Justice appointed Mr. S.K. Ghosh, engineer, as Arbitrator.

7. Notice of appointment was given by the sole arbitrator to both the parties by letter dated 3.10.2002. Statement of claim was filed before the Arbitrator by the respondent on 20.11.2002. Counter statement of facts and counter-claim was duly filed by the appellant on 9.1.2003. In spite of the objection having been raised to the lack of jurisdiction, the arbitrator co