Final bill acceptance, decree interest correction, and arbitral jurisdiction: contractual limits can justify partial interference with an award.

Acceptance of a final bill does not by itself bar a contractor from raising further claims; a waiver or estoppel arises only where the contractor expressly declares that no further claim will be made. Refusal to grant interest from the date of decree could not be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because such omission is not a clerical or arithmetical error. An arbitral award may be vulnerable where the arbitrator ignores material contractual clauses or acts beyond the contract, and claim items involving additional work, prolongation losses and material escalation were therefore remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether acceptance of the final bill barred the contractor from raising further claims; (ii) whether the High Court could interfere with the refusal to grant interest from the date of decree by resorting to section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (iii) whether the award on claim items relating to additional work, prolongation losses and material escalation could stand when the arbitrator had not considered the relevant contractual clauses.

Issue (i): whether acceptance of the final bill barred the contractor from raising further claims.

Analysis: Mere acceptance of the final bill does not, by itself, extinguish further claims. Bar of subsequent claims would arise only where the contractor, while accepting the bill, has unequivocally declared that no further claim would be made. In the absence of such a declaration, estoppel or preclusion cannot be inferred.

Conclusion: The objection based on final bill acceptance was rejected and the contractor was not barred from pursuing further claims.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could interfere with the refusal to grant interest from the date of decree by resorting to section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The omission to grant interest was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake correctable under section 152. The proper course was an appeal or review, and the revisional court could not use section 152 to alter the decree on this point.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference on the question of interest was held to be unsustainable.

Issue (iii): whether the award on claim items relating to additional work, prolongation losses and material escalation could stand when the arbitrator had not considered the relevant contractual clauses.

Analysis: An arbitrator must remain within the four corners of the contract and cannot ignore material contractual restrictions. While findings on facts are ordinarily not open to reappraisal, an award may be vulnerable where the arbitrator disregards relevant clauses or decides matters in excess of jurisdiction. On the record, claim item No. 3, and claim items No. 7 and 11, required reconsideration because the relevant contractual provisions and materials were not properly taken into account.

Conclusion: The award was set aside to the extent of claim items Nos. 3, 7 and 11, and those disputes were remitted to a fresh arbitrator for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part. The award and connected orders were disturbed only to the extent of the specified claim items, while the remaining findings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award can be interfered with where the arbitrator ignores material contractual limitations or acts beyond the contract, since such error goes to jurisdiction and not merely to appreciation of evidence.

---