JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated August 5, 2024 passed in AP-COM 208 of 2024 in AO COM 36 of 2024. Respondent has filed a cross objection which was registered as OCOT 1 of 2025.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties in the appeal and the cross objection are referred to in the manner as they appear in the appeal. Both the appeal and the cross objection were heard together.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has allowed a part of the challenge by setting aside a portion of the impugned award of the Arbitral Tribunal before it, and allowed and upheld the balance part of the award.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, a tender dated February 11, 2011 was floated in which, the respondent participated. The appellant had issued the Letter of Acceptance on July 19, 2011. Finding that, the respondent was not executing the contract in terms thereof, appellant had terminated the same on November 10, 2017. A notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 was issued on June 21, 2017. The Arbitral Tribunal had entered into reference and in consequence thereto made and published the award on March 9, 2021 with a corrigendum thereof on November 27, 2021.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of claim. He has contended that, all claims made by the appellant before the Arbitral Tribunal fell within the excepted clause of the arbitration agreement. In this regard, he has referred to the arbitration clause and the excepted clause contained in the contract.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, out of 11 claims, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed claim nos. 1,2,7,8 and 11. All of such claims which were allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal had fallen within the excepted clause.

7. Relying upon 2014 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 246 (Harsha Constructions Vs. Union of India and Others), 2022 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 463 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar) and 2023 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 539 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. NCC Limited) learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, since, the disputes adjudicated upon fell within the excepted clause, the award cannot be sustained. Learned Judge has erred in sustaining a portion of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, none of the claims allowed by Arbitral Tribunal fell within the excepted clause. He has relied upon 2011 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 758 (J.G. Engineers Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Another) and 2025 SCC Online SC 419 (Dr. Poornima Advani and Anr Vs. Government of NCT and Anr) in support of such contention.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has referred to the claims made by the Arbitral Tribunal as also the excepted clause. He has contended that, none of the claims fell within the excepted clause.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, the learned Judge erred in disallowing claim Nos. 2,8 and 11 which were granted by the Arbitral Tribunal. He has contended that, none of those claims fell within the excepted clause.

11. In course of hearing of the appeal and this cross objection we had invited the attention to the learned counsel for the parties to 2024 SCC Online SC 2632 (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Versus Sanman Rice Mills) on the scope and ambit of Section 37 of the Act of 1996. The learned Counsel for the respective parties had made their submissions on the same.

12. The appellant had invited bids comprising of a technical and financial construction of viaduct including related works for 2.16 km length including substructure on pile foundation with substructure and superstructure work o