Section 34 review is limited: arbitral findings on possession, area shortfall and counterclaims were left undisturbed.
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court declined to interfere with arbitral findings that possession had not been validly offered before the completion certificate, so the contractual consequences did not arise. It also upheld findings on the absence of a tenancy, shortfall in super area, delay compensation, and rejection of counterclaims, since these were based on documentary evidence and contractual interpretation. The court reiterated that it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute a different factual view merely because another conclusion is possible, and the arbitral award remained undisturbed.
Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral finding that possession was not validly offered before the completion certificate and that the contractual consequences did not arise required interference; (ii) Whether the findings on lease, shortfall in super area, delay compensation and rejection of counterclaims warranted interference in appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue (i): Whether the arbitral finding that possession was not validly offered before the completion certificate and that the contractual consequences did not arise required interference.
Analysis: The contract required completion and occupation certificate before possession. The arbitral tribunal interpreted the allotment letter and addendum, considered the documentary material, and concluded that the possession offer preceded the requisite completion certificate and was therefore not in accordance with the contract. The finding was supported by the contractual clauses and evidence.
Conclusion: The finding did not call for interference and remained against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the findings on lease, shortfall in super area, delay compensation and rejection of counterclaims warranted interference in appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The tribunal recorded factual findings that no tenancy had come into existence, that there was a shortfall in super area, that delay compensation followed from the stipulated completion timeline, and that the counterclaims were considered and rejected on facts and contractual interpretation. The scope under Section 34 did not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a fresh view on the contract merely because a different conclusion was possible.
Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out and the findings stood against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The arbitral award and the order affirming it were left undisturbed, and the appeal failed on the restricted scope of interference with arbitral findings.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings challenging an arbitral award, the court will not reappreciate evidence or reinterpret the contract as if sitting in appeal on facts, and factual findings based on contractual interpretation and documentary evidence will not be interfered with absent a legal error within the confines of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
