Plausible contract interpretation by arbitrator upheld; court refused Section 34 interference despite alternative reading.

A plausible and reasonable construction of a consultancy contract by an arbitral tribunal will not be disturbed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because another interpretation is possible. The tribunal had read the contract, documents, and parties' conduct to hold that the consultant was required to review already approved design and bid documents, and that view was upheld as a possible one. The Court found no breach of Section 28(3) and no conflict with public policy, because the tribunal remained the primary judge of the evidence. The challenge to the award therefore failed and the Section 34 petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the tribunal had misconstrued the contract and thereby failed to decide in accordance with Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the construction of the consultancy contract, especially the consultant's responsibilities concerning design review and related obligations. The tribunal had examined the contractual clauses, the documentary record, and the parties' conduct, and had taken the view that the consultant was required to review the design and bid documents already approved. The Court held that such interpretation was a possible view based on reasonable construction of the contract. It further noted that, in arbitral review, the tribunal is the primary judge of the evidence and that a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not interfere merely because another view is possible. In that background, the Court found no violation of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore no basis to treat the award as conflicting with public policy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the award failed and the award was not liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was upheld, and the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitral tribunal adopts a plausible and reasonable construction of the contract, a court will not interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because a different interpretation is possible.

---