JUDGMENT :

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

1. By way of the present petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act” for short), the petitioner/University of Delhi/non-claimant impugns arbitral award dated 30.11.2011 (“impugned award”) made by the learned Sole Arbitrator in proceedings arising from disputes with the respondent/M/s Kalra Electricals/claimant. The disputes between the parties arose from Work Contract bearing No. UE/898/DU/EM/57 (2005-06) dated 09.06.2005 (“subject work contract”) and were referred to arbitration in view of clause 25 thereof.

2. By way of the impugned award, though the learned Arbitrator recorded a finding that the petitioner had already paid to the respondent the amounts due towards the subject work contract, he nevertheless directed the petitioner to release “......pending payments amounting to Rs. 20 Lakhs.....” in respect of the other 44 contracts between the parties.

Petitioner’s Submissions

3. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the primary issue for consideration before this court is simply this: whether an arbitral tribunal can decide and grant relief in respect of matters not referred to it.

4. Counsel submits that it will be seen from the record that though clearly vide order dated 02.06.2010 made in Arb. Pet. No. 120/2010, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court had referred the disputes between the parties which were raised vide invocation notice dated 03.02.2010 to arbitration with respect only to one contract, viz. the subject work contract, the learned Arbitrator has erroneously proceeded to deal with disputes relating to 44 other contracts between the parties. It is stated that disputes arising from the 44 other contracts were neither contemplated in invocation notice dated 03.02.2010, nor in this courts referral order. This, Ms. Kaul submits, is impermissible and is a ground to set-aside the impugned award under section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the A&C Act. Ms. Kaul also challenges the arbitral award on two other grounds viz. that the disputes with respect to the other 44 contracts, based on which the petitioner has been directed to pay the awarded sum, were also time-barred; and that the impugned award is liable to be set-aside in view of section 34(2)(b).

5. Attention of this court is drawn to the referral order dated 02.06.2010 which reads as under:

“There appears to be in existence a dispute which has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent. For the moment, in the present petition, I am only concerned with the disputes qua contract bearing no. UE/898/DU/EM/57(2005-06) dated 09.06.2005. Mr. Saxena submits before me that he would have no difficulty if the court were to direct appointment of an arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the contract obtaining between the petitioner and the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the contract obtaining between the parties. The respondent shall appoint an arbitrator within ten days from today with prior notice to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in terms of the directions above. Needless to say the disposal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner taking recourse of an appropriate remedy with regard to the remaining contracts.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Attention is further drawn to section 34 of the A&C Act, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“34. Application for setting aside arbitral record:

(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).

(2) An arbitral reward may be set aside by the Court only if:

(a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that:

(i) *** *** ***

(ii) *** *** ***

(iii) *** *** ***

(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitratio