As per case facts, an appellant challenged a judgment and order that partially set aside an arbitral award. The original dispute stemmed from a terminated contract where the respondent was ... awarded claims by the Arbitral Tribunal. The appellant argued these claims fell under an 'excepted clause' in the contract, making them non-arbitrable. The Single Judge partially upheld this challenge, setting aside some claims. The question arose whether the claims concerning security deposit, bank guarantee commissions, and interest were truly non-arbitrable under the contract's 'excepted clauses,' and if the Single Judge erred in setting aside parts of the award, especially considering the Arbitral Tribunal's findings that the appellant's actions caused delays and rendered the contract termination without merit. Finally, the Court found the Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of 'excepted matters' plausible, noting that the claims were intertwined and the appellant had not properly differentiated arbitral from excepted matters. It concluded that the Single Judge had erred by improperly exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the Single Judge's impugned judgment and order, thereby allowing the cross-objection and upholding the Arbitral Tribunal's original award.