will be deemed to have waived his claims and the Railway shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of those claims. Thereby it is clear that the Railway had imposed as a condition, contingency of waiver upon the contractor. It follows that when the Railway itself, on judgment of the General Manager, referred disputes raised by the contractor to the Tribunal for arbitration, any ‘excepted matter’ that stood referred was to be adjudicated by the Tribunal upon the Railway having waived its right to except those matters from adjudication in arbitration. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for Court to direct respondent to take those claims as are alleged to be ‘excepted matters’, to Court on settled law that a person cannot be rendered remediless by contract. There is clear waiver on part of the Railway in exercising its authority to firstly, rule on the disputed claims, secondly, in judging complexity of the claims for purpose of constitution of arbitral Tribunal and thirdly, in referring all of them to arbitration.
