The court emphasized that an arbitrator's jurisdiction is confined to claims explicitly referred to in the arbitration clause; claims arising from separate contracts cannot be entertained.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No.119 of 2020 ( Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lko. vs. M/s Trishul Enterprises ) whereby a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) was dismissed, as a consequence, the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 20.08.2020 has been upheld.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeal, it will be appropriate to notice relevant facts leading upto this appeal.

3. An agreement was made between the appellant and the respondent bearing No.1 of 2008-2009, dated 16.04.2008 for the purposes of maintenance of the landscape in the campus of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the SGPGI). The agreement was for a period of three years and it could be extended till the finalization of a new tender process or three months which ever was earlier. The said agreement, inter alia, contained an arbitration clause.

4. The respondent initially filed Writ Petition No.10358 (M/B) of 2015 wherein the respondent sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of clause 27 of the agreement dated 16.04.2008. A further writ in the nature of mandamus was sought, seeking a direction for the appellant to release the security money amounting to Rs.6,12,000/- as well as payment of Rs.10,000/- which was allegedly withheld by the appellant. Before the Division Bench of this Court, it was informed by the appellant (who was the respondent in the writ court) that Dr. C.M. Pandey had already been appointed as a Sole Arbitrator. Taking note of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was disposed of leaving it open for the respondent to get his claims adjudicated before the Sole Arbitrator.

5. In furtherance of the order passed by the High Court dated 06.11.2025 in Writ Petition No.10358 (M/B) of 2015 the respondent filed his statement of claim before the Sole Arbitrator, namely, Dr. C.M. Pandey. Despite the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator, he did not hold any proceedings, which led the respondent to file a contempt petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court bearing Contempt Petition No.427 (C) of 2016 and upon issuance of notice in the contempt proceedings, the Sole Arbitrator proceeded with the matter. However, the said Arbitrator could not conclude the proceedings as he retired.

6. Once again the respondent was compelled to approach the High Court and this time, it filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 bearing number Arbitration Application No.29 of 2017 which was decided on 15.03.2019 and a fresh Arbitrator was appointed. This newly appointed Sole Arbitrator started the proceedings afresh taking it forward from the stage of exchange of pleadings. In the said arbitral proceedings, the respondent filed his statement of claim on 11.12.2015. The appellant (who was the respondent before the Arbitrator) filed its statement of defence including a counter claim dated 26.07.2019. The parties led evidence, and thereafter the Sole Arbitrator allowed the claims in part and made its award o