Limited Section 34 review preserves arbitral findings on payable bills, interest, and costs despite evidentiary challenges.

Section 34 interference remains limited to perversity, patent illegality, or public policy grounds, and a court will not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. The arbitral finding that the 5th running account bill was payable was upheld because the arbitrator considered the contract, the bill, the TDS certificate, the absence of a contemporaneous dispute, and the surrounding record. Alleged inconsistencies were held insufficient to show no evidence, ignored material, or violation of basic justice. Interest in successive stages was also sustained as within arbitral jurisdiction and not barred by the contract or Section 31(7), and the costs award was not treated as a ground for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award granting the 5th running account bill amount, interest and costs was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds of perversity, patent illegality, violation of public policy, improper appreciation of evidence, and excessive interest and costs.

Analysis: Interference under Section 34 is confined to the narrow grounds recognised by the statute. An award can be disturbed for perversity only where a finding is based on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or relies on irrelevant material. The challenge, however, would not succeed merely because another view on the facts is possible. The arbitrator had considered the contract terms, the 5th running account bill, the TDS certificate, the absence of proof of any contemporaneous dispute after submission of the bill, and the surrounding documentary record. On that basis, the finding that the amount was payable was a plausible view on the evidence. The court declined to re-appreciate the quantity or quality of evidence, and held that the alleged inconsistencies did not amount to patent illegality or a violation of the basic notions of morality or justice. The award of interest in successive stages was also upheld as being within the arbitral jurisdiction and not barred by the contract or Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act. The award of costs was likewise not found to be a ground for interference under Section 34.

Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed, and the award was sustained.

---