Arbitral contract interpretation on escalation clauses upheld; court found no ground to interfere under Section 34.

Arbitral interpretation of contract escalation clauses was not interfered with under Section 34 because the tribunal's reading of the documents, the parties' conduct, and the harmonious construction of the clauses showed that price adjustment applied to the entire work, including Bill of Quantity items, deviations and daywork. The Court treated contractual interpretation as a matter for the arbitral tribunal and found no perversity or public policy violation warranting judicial intervention. It also accepted reliance on trade usage and engineering practice under Section 28(3), and the challenge to the award failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award and the concurrent findings upholding escalation on Bill of Quantity items and deviations under the contract were liable to be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The contract vested the Engineers with authority to resolve ambiguities and the arbitral tribunal with power to review the Engineers' decisions. On the contractual documents and the parties' conduct, the tribunal held that price adjustment was payable on the entire work, including Bill of Quantity items, variations and daywork, and that the relevant clauses were harmonious. The Court found that interpretation of the contract was a matter for the arbitral tribunal, and that no perversity or violation of public policy had been shown to justify interference under Section 34. The Court also accepted the tribunal's reliance on trade usage and engineering practice under Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion: The challenge to the award failed and the interpretation allowing escalation on Bill of Quantity items and deviations was upheld against the appellant.

---