On jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that, assuming the oral contract of joint and several liability existed, respondent no. The Supreme Court held that this was a reasonable and possible view based on evidence and therefore was not perverse. Findings of the arbitral tribunal: The arbitral tribunal allowed the appellant’s claim and held both respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. Despite noting the need for express authorisation of the client for such adjustment, the arbitral tribunal held it to be valid. (5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.