ORDER : D.N.RAY, J. 1. Heard Ms. Prutha Bhavsar, learned advocate for Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior advocate with Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 The appellant herein, representing the Union of India, had entered into a contractual agreement with respondent no.1, M/s Kalyanmal Madan Mohan, for execution of certain works for a contract value of Rs.1,92,66,359/-. The said contract was formalized vide Agreement No. CE(AF) A/JAM/14 of 1993-94, with the stipulated time for completion being 18 months. The work commenced on 27.11.1993 and was eventually completed on 02.08.2000. Upon completion, respondent no.1, by way of communication dated 06.11.2000, raised certain disputes pertaining to the contract and sought appointment of an arbitrator. 2.2 Pursuant thereto, an Arbitrator was appointed vide letter dated 26.04.2004, namely Brig. Amarjeet Singh. However, the said Arbitrator tendered his resignation vide letter dated 30.01.2005. Thereafter, Mr. K. Ravi Kishore (arrayed as respondent no.2 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2007) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, vide communication dated 19.07.2005. 2.3 The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 13.08.2005. Subsequently, on 27.03.2006, the Union of India filed an application requesting the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the issue of arbitrability of the claims raised. Thereafter, the Arbitrator proceeded to pass an award on 15.12.2006, wherein he held that the claims were arbitrable and awarded a sum of Rs.86,899/- in favour of the Union of India, as against its claim of Rs.9,63,318/-. 2.4 Aggrieved by the arbitral award dated 15.12.2006, the appellant/original petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2007 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the said award. However, the said application came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.10.2007. 2.5 Challenging the judgment and order dated 04.10.2007, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 37 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it stood on the date of filing, seeking the following reliefs:— “a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this appeal; b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgement and order rendered below Exh.16 dated 04.10.2007 by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar in C.M.A. No. 16/2007 and further be pleased to allow the appeal throughout by allowing the reliefs as set out in C.M.A. No.16/2007 preferred under Section 34 of the Act. Consequently, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set-aside the judgement and award of the sole arbitrator. c) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and expedient be granted in favour of the appellant d) Costs of this appeal be provided for to the appellant.” 3. Ms. Prutha Bhavsar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Ankit Shah, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the claim No.1 was wrongly decided by the learned Arbitrator where, under the head of “non-payment of the final bill” an amount of Rs.17,88,683/- was awarded to the respondent. Ms. Bhavsar made a pointed reference to condition No.65 of IAFW -2249, which reads as under:- “No further claims shall be made by the contractor after submission of the final bill and this shall be deemed to have been waived and extinguish” 3.1 She further submitted, based upon the aforesaid Clause 65, that once the contractor had accepted the final bill, these claims were not even arbitrable and therefore, the Arbitrator lacked the jurisdiction to enter upon the adjudication process and therefore, the award and the order under Section 34 of the Act which upholds the award, deserve to be set aside even under the limited scope of Section 37 (1)(c) of the Act equivalent to Section 37 (1)(b) as its stood at the time of filing. 4. Mr. S.H.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the award was reasoned, just and categorically upheld under Section 34 of the Act and therefore, there could be no ground whatsoever to upset the award. 5. From the perusal of the award, we find that the learned Arbitrator had specifically considered the applicability of condition No.65 of IAFW-2249 in the following terms :- “8.14. Question B: What is a fair interpretation of condition 65 of IAFW-2249? 8.14.1 As per condition 65 of IAFW-2249, GCC, no further claims shall be made by the contractor after submission of final bill and these shall be deemed to have been waived and extinguished. 8.14.2 Contractor can be paid only after signing both certificates Cage - II and Cage-VIII of final bill. In this case, only Cage-II is signed. 8.14.1 As per condition 65 of IAFW-2249, GCC, no further claims shall be made by the contractor after submission of final bill and these shall be deemed to have been waived and extinguished. 8.14.2 Contractor can be paid only after signing both certificates Cage - II and Cage-VIII of final bill. In this case, only Cage-II is signed. 8.14.3 As contended by UOI it can not mean that contractor can not make any further claims even if contractor is not being paid what is claimed by him in the final bill. 8.14.4 Condition 65 draws its legal principle from Sec 63 of Indian Contract Act:- 8.14.4.1 Relevant illustration of Sec 63 of Indian Contract Act is as under: "(b) 'A' owes 'B' 5,000 rupees. 'A' pays to 'B' and 'B' accepts in satisfaction of the whole debt, 2000 rupees paid at the time and place at which 5000 rupees were payable. The whole debt is discharged." 8.14.4.2 An understanding of the above example would be that when Claimant is proposing and receiving Rs. 2000/-, the debt is discharged. But if amount being paid is less than Rs. 2000/- there is no accord and satisfaction and section 63 cannot be applicable. 8.14.4.3 In the present case, it is not the situation that UOI has paid in full the final bill submitted by the contractor. In fact, the amount was drastically reduced and the payment due became minus requiring UOI to recover from contractor. 8.14.5 As such, in the subject case where Cage VIII is not signed and where UOI failed to pay the money demanded by Contractor, provisions of condition 65 of IAFW-2249 (barring further claims) are not attracted. With this, the stand of UOI cannot be upheld.” 6. The award and the findings thereafter are well reasoned and we find that even claim No.1 on behalf of the appellant - Union of India has been granted in part, at paragraph Nos.64 to 69.6 of the award. 6.1 The applicability of condition No.65 has been considered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2007, wherein, it has been held as under :- “It is also pertinent to note that the contractor has not accepted the payment of final bill. 6.1 The applicability of condition No.65 has been considered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2007, wherein, it has been held as under :- “It is also pertinent to note that the contractor has not accepted the payment of final bill. The contractor has produced the final bill of Rs.15,67,340-31 which bill was passed by reducing the amount and the petitioner had made the recovery of Rs.5,35, 741/-. It is stated that due to the dispute the work was delayed. The arbitrator has also mentioned the reasons of delay in work vide para 15 and 16 of the award, and the arbitrator has also considered both the parties and then after he had passed the award. ” 6.2 Apart from the aforesaid findings, it has been held in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 as under:- “135. The existence of the arbitration agreement as contained in Clause 13 of the insurance policy is not disputed by the appellant. The dispute raised by the claimant being one of quantum and not of liability, prima facie, falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The dispute regarding “accord and satisfaction” as raised by the appellant does not pertain to the existence of the arbitration agreement, and can be adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal as a preliminary issue.” 7. From the pleadings of the parties, there is no evidence that a specific preliminary issues were raised by the appellant in respect of accord and satisfaction and the arbitrability of the disputes with particular reference to Clause 65 of IAFW - 2249. However, the applicability of such clause, has been categorically framed as an issue and answered in favour of the respondent, by the learned Arbitrator, as noted in paragraph No. 5 hereinabove. Therefore also, there is neither any procedural nor substantive lapse in the adjudication by the learned Arbitrator which could be called in question within the narrow scope of our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we find no reason to interefere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in C.M.A.No.16/2007 and consequently dismiss the present appeal,however, without any costs.