An arbitrator's jurisdiction is limited by the terms of the contract between the parties. The arbitrator cannot exceed his jurisdiction by entertaining claims that are specifically excluded from arbitration under the contract.

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated April 25, 2000 passed by a learned Judge of this Court rejecting an application for setting aside of the award filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (In short "the Act")

2. On or about May 30, 1994 an agreement was entered into by and between the parties appointing the respondent/contractor for construction of 48 flats at premises Nos. 19C and 19D, Golf Club Road, Calcutta. It was stipulated in the agreement that the entire work, contracted for, should be completed and possession of the flats should be delivered within 18(eighteen) months from April 12, 1994.

3. After taking over the site the contractor progressed with the works to some extent, but could not complete the work within the time frame. By a letter dated December 23, 1994, the contractor, inter alia, stated that it was not possible for the contractor to recommence the work and to show minimum progress of the work due to reasons allegedly beyond their control and submitted a re-schedule of the work and asked for permission to restart the work. It was categorically stated in the said letter that opportunities should be given to the contractor to execute the work in accordance with the re-schedule failing which necessary actions, as per provisions of the contract, could be taken against it. It appears, that the authorities concerned accepted the requests of the contractor and although recorded that the work had been kept completely suspended from November 21, 1994 to December 30, 1994, but granted the contractor an opportunity to complete the work by January 31,1995 within which the contractor was requested to complete the work and in case of failure on the part of the contractor to complete the work, the authorities concerned pointed out that there would have no other alternative but to terminate the contract.

4. By a letter, the Deputy Chief Engineer (II) informed the contractor that it had failed to avail itself of the opportunity to complete that work within the time mentioned in the said letter of the contractor and, ultimately, by a letter dated November 13, 1995 the contract was terminated in accordance with clause 15 of the contract.

5. There has been a clause in the general conditions for referring all disputes between the parties to contract arising out of or relating to the contract, other than those for which the decision of the engineer is by contract expressly made final, binding and conclusive, to the arbitration.

It is provided in clause 15 of the work contract that certificate of the engineer as to the happening of the any of the events referred to in the said clause shall be conclusive proof as between the contractor and the Trust of the statements contained in such certificate. Thus, in certain matters the opinions of the engineers are final between the parties.

6. In terms of the agreement initially the Officer-on-Special Duty of the Calcutta Improvement Trust became the arbitrator, but ultimately Amitava Lala, J., by the order dated November 18, 1997 removed the named arbitrator and appointed the present Arbitrator, a learned Advocate of this court, to act as sole arbitrator.

After holding several sittings, the learned Arbitrator published his award on September 30, 1999 awarding the contractor a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/- in full and final settlement of the contractor's alleged calim. The learned Arbitrator granted simple interest at the rate of 11% per annum with effect from November 23, 1995 to February 23, 1998 on the said sum and, further, interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said sum with effect from February 24, 1998 till the date of full payment or decree of the Court. The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only towards cost of arbitration to be recovered from the Trust.

7. The appellant herein, the Calcutta Improvement Trust, filed an application under sections 30 and 33 of the said Act, inter alia, praying for setting