Narrow Section 34 review limits court interference with arbitral awards absent patent illegality or perversity.

Section 34 review of an arbitral award remains narrow, and a court will not interfere merely because another view on the contractual claims is possible. The award was found to contain reasoned consideration of the evidence and contract clauses, and the objections alleging lack of reasons, excess of jurisdiction, and non-consideration of restitution principles were not made out. The court reiterated that it cannot reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over the tribunal's interpretation of the contract, and no patent illegality, perversity, or other statutory ground for setting aside was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award suffered from any ground under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 warranting interference and setting aside of the award.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to selected findings of the arbitrator on contractual claims and alleged lack of reasons, excess of jurisdiction, and non-consideration of restitution principles. The award showed reasoned consideration of the evidence and contract clauses, and the court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Section 34 is narrow. An arbitral award cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible, and the court cannot reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over the tribunal's interpretation of the contract. No patent illegality, perversity, or other statutory ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The objections under Section 34 were not maintainable on merits and the arbitral award was sustained.

---