Limited judicial review of arbitral awards bars reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings under public policy challenge.

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits only limited judicial interference with an arbitral award, confined to the statutory grounds and a narrowly construed public policy challenge. A court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view for that of the arbitral forum merely because another conclusion is possible. On the facts discussed, inconsistencies in the petitioners' version, absence of supporting contractual documents, discrepancies in delivery records, and failure to prove title to shares supported the arbitral findings and did not justify interference. The challenge to the award therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitral award could be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of public policy or perversity, and whether the Court could reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the arbitral appellate forum.

Analysis: The limited scope of interference under section 34 was emphasised, in light of the statutory policy of minimal judicial intervention under section 5. An award can be interfered with only on the specific grounds recognised by the statute, and not because the Court may take a different view of the facts or evidence. The record disclosed serious inconsistencies in the petitioners' version, absence of supporting contractual documents, discrepancies in the delivery records, and a failure to establish title to the shares. Those factual infirmities supported the findings of the arbitral authorities, and did not justify judicial substitution of a different factual conclusion.

Conclusion: The arbitral award did not warrant interference under section 34, and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected after holding that the award could not be disturbed on a reappreciation of evidence or on a broader notion of public policy.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court cannot set aside an arbitral award by reappreciating evidence or substituting its own factual view, and interference is confined to the statutory grounds, including a narrowly construed challenge on public policy.

---