As per case facts, three civil appeals arose from a Bombay High Court judgment confirming the dismissal of objections to arbitration awards. The appellant had entered into main agreements and ... separate interior design agreements with the respondents for selling flats. Disputes over construction progress and payments led to arbitration, resulting in awards challenged by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over disputes arising from the interior design agreements, which contained distinct arbitration clauses with named arbitrators. They also questioned the arbitrator's authority to grant specific performance and challenged factual findings. The question arose whether the main agreement's arbitration clause, with its broad language covering "connected" matters, extended to disputes under the interior design agreements, whether jurisdictional objections could be raised for the first time under Section 34, and if an arbitrator could legally direct specific performance of a contract. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the general arbitration clause in the main agreement covered disputes from both sets of agreements due to the broad wording and interconnected nature of the contracts. The Court further affirmed an arbitrator's power to grant specific performance, overturning a contrary view from a High Court. While assuming that jurisdictional objections could be raised under Section 34 despite not being raised earlier, the Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions on jurisdiction or factual findings.