Arbitral award review is narrowly confined, and contract conduct supported treating HTPL supplies under the original agreement.

Interference with an arbitral award remains confined to the narrow grounds under Section 34, and a court under Section 37 cannot conduct a fresh merits review beyond examining whether the Section 34 court exceeded its jurisdiction. On the contractual issue, the agreement, correspondence and conduct of the parties showed no separate arrangement excluding HTPL-related supplies from the agreement dated 14.12.1993. The supplier had received commission, participated in the transaction, and corresponded on letters of credit and dispatch, supporting the view that the sales were dealt with under that agreement. The arbitral tribunal's construction, affirmed by the HC, was treated as a reasonable and possible view, and no ground was made out to set aside the award.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute arising from supplies made to HTPL fell within the arbitration clause and the agreement dated 14.12.1993, and whether the arbitral award could be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that interference with an arbitral award is confined to the narrow grounds under Section 34, and an appellate court under Section 37 cannot undertake a fresh merits review beyond examining whether the Section 34 court exceeded its jurisdiction. On the contractual issue, the Court found that the agreement, correspondence, and conduct of the parties showed no separate and independent arrangement excluding HTPL transactions from the original agreement. The Appellant had received commission, participated in the transaction, corresponded on letters of credit and dispatch, and admitted that the sales to HTPL were dealt with under the agreement dated 14.12.1993. The construction adopted by the arbitral tribunal and affirmed by the High Court was held to be a reasonable and possible view.

Conclusion: The dispute was held to be arbitrable under the agreement dated 14.12.1993, and no ground was made out to set aside the award.

---