Narrow scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34: courts will not reappraise evidence absent perversity or legal error.

Interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to narrow grounds. A court will not reappraise evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible; interference lies only for an apparent error, perversity, or disregard of settled law. On the stated facts, the arbitrator had considered the agreement, payment obligations, and interest, and no perversity or other cogent ground was shown to set the award aside. Contentions raised for the first time before the SC did not justify interference, so the challenge to the award failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award, as affirmed by the High Court, warranted interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Interference with an arbitral award is confined to narrow grounds. The Court will not reappraise evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator merely because another view is possible. Interference is justified only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the award is perverse, or the arbitrator has acted contrary to the statutory legal position. On the facts, the agreement, the payment obligations, and the award of interest were all considered by the arbitrator and the High Court found no perversity or cogent ground to set the award aside. The additional contentions raised before the Court had not been urged below and did not furnish a basis for interference.

Conclusion: No interference with the arbitral award was warranted, and the challenge to the award failed.

---