Contractual claims, arbitral jurisdiction and correction of decree interest are governed by express terms and limited procedural powers.

Acceptance of a final bill does not by itself amount to waiver or estoppel against further contractual claims unless there is a clear and unequivocal declaration that no further claim will be made, so the contractor could still pursue its claims. An arbitrator must act within the contract and cannot ignore express clauses governing extra work, prolongation loss and escalation; where those contractual preconditions were disregarded, the award on the challenged items was vulnerable for jurisdictional error and was remitted for fresh arbitration. An omission to award interest from the date of decree was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake and could not be corrected under section 152 CPC, so the High Court had no revisional jurisdiction to grant that relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acceptance of the final bill precluded the contractor from raising further claims; (ii) whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by allowing claims for extra work, prolongation loss, and escalation without adhering to the contract; (iii) whether the High Court could grant interest from the date of decree by invoking section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

Analysis: Acceptance of a final bill does not by itself amount to a waiver or an estoppel against further claims unless there is a clear and unequivocal declaration that no further claim will be made. In the absence of such a declaration, the contractor remains entitled to pursue claims arising out of the contract.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by allowing claims for extra work, prolongation loss, and escalation without adhering to the contract.

Analysis: An arbitrator must act within the contract and cannot ignore express contractual restrictions. Claims for additional work had to satisfy the contractual preconditions of written order and timely submission, and the claims for prolongation and escalation also required consideration of the contractual scheme, including the secured advance and supply of materials. The award in respect of the disputed items was therefore vulnerable to interference for disregarding material contractual clauses and relevant materials, amounting to misdirection and excess of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant in respect of the challenged claims, and those claims were directed to be reconsidered by a fresh arbitrator.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could grant interest from the date of decree by invoking section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Failure to award interest from the date of decree was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake. Such an omission could not be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the proper remedy lay in appeal or review. The High Court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction in revision to interfere and grant the relief.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The award and the appellate orders were interfered with only to the extent of the disputed claim items and the interest question, and the matters concerning the specified claim items were remitted for fresh arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitrator cannot disregard express contractual limitations, and an award made in excess of the contract or by ignoring material contractual terms is liable to be interfered with for jurisdictional error; a non-clerical omission in the award cannot be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---