Contractual exclusion of arbitration prevails over a general clause, and a later jurisdictional challenge remained open under Section 34.

A contract read as a whole may lawfully exclude arbitration for a defined class of disputes, even where a general arbitration clause exists. The court held that the specific clause barring arbitration for claims arising under the default provision prevailed over the broader arbitration clause, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide that dispute. It also held that a prior Section 11 proceeding only examines the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not finally determine the scope or enforceability of the clause, so it did not bar a later jurisdictional challenge under Section 34. The award was therefore set aside as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award could be sustained when the contract contained a specific prohibition against arbitration for claims arising under the default clause, and whether earlier proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 precluded a later jurisdictional challenge before the arbitral tribunal and in proceedings under Section 34 of that Act.

Analysis: The relevant contractual clauses had to be read together. The arbitration clause was broad, but the default clause specifically excluded arbitration for disputes arising from recovery of financial loss under that clause. A clause excluding arbitration for a defined class of disputes is consistent with party autonomy and does not become invalid merely because the agreement also contains a general arbitration clause. The limited inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not finally determine the scope or efficacy of the arbitration clause. The earlier reference proceedings therefore did not foreclose a later challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction. Since the dispute decided by the arbitrator fell within the contractual prohibition, the tribunal acted beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the award succeeded. The arbitral award was unsustainable and was set aside because the dispute was not arbitrable under the specific contractual prohibition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the award was annulled on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute expressly excluded from arbitration by the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract, read as a whole, expressly excludes arbitration for a defined class of disputes, an arbitral tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over that class, and a prior limited determination under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not prevent a later jurisdictional challenge under Section 34 of that Act.

---