Limited judicial review of arbitral awards bars reappraisal of facts, and brief reasons do not invalidate the award.

The scope of judicial interference with an arbitral award is limited, and a court cannot reappreciate facts, evidence, or contractual interpretation merely because another view is possible. Brevity of reasons, by itself, does not invalidate an award, and even a non-speaking award may be sustained in appropriate circumstances. Where the arbitrator is shown to have heard both sides, examined the record, and rejected the claim on the basis of deviation in the risk purchase contract, a challenge that effectively seeks factual reappraisal is impermissible. The objection to set aside the award was therefore rejected and the award was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the reasons given for rejecting the claim were brief and did not disclose specific deviations in the risk purchase contract.

Analysis: The scope of interference with an arbitral award is limited. A court cannot sit in appeal over the arbitrator's assessment of facts, evidence, or contractual interpretation merely because another view is possible. The award recorded that the arbitrator heard both sides, examined the documents and files, and rejected the claim on the basis of deviation in the risk purchase contract. Brevity of reasons does not by itself invalidate an award, and even a non-speaking award may be sustained in appropriate circumstances. The challenge in substance sought reappreciation of factual findings, which is impermissible in proceedings to set aside an award.

Conclusion: The objection to the award was rejected and the award was upheld.

---