Arbitral award on liquidated damages upheld where factual findings on delay, loss, and limited judicial review were not perverse.

In arbitration challenges under Sections 34 and 37, refusal to reappreciate evidence was justified where the tribunal's findings on delay and absence of compensable loss were not shown to be perverse. A mere failure to object to deductions did not by itself bar a later challenge, and the validity of accord and satisfaction remained open on the evidence if assent was not truly voluntary. In disputes involving liquidated damages, the contract had to be read with Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, requiring proof of breach and compensable loss, though strict proof of actual loss may not always be necessary where a genuine pre-estimate is shown. Interference with the award was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the award of liquidated damages and the concurrent findings rejecting the refund claim could be interfered with in proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: A mere failure to object to deductions does not by itself bar a later challenge. The legality of accord and satisfaction, and whether assent was truly voluntary or obtained under a dominating position, remains open to examination on the evidence. In disputes governed by clauses for liquidated damages, the contract must be read with Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, so that the claimant must show a breach and a compensable loss, though strict proof of actual loss may not always be required where genuine pre-estimate is shown. The arbitral tribunal had found, on the documentary record, that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that no damages had resulted from delayed completion. Those findings were treated as factual findings not shown to be perverse. The court also emphasized that judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 is confined and does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: Interference with the arbitral award was unwarranted, and the challenge to recovery of liquidated damages failed.

---