Section 34 review of arbitration is narrow; contractual interest and evidentiary findings were upheld against fraud and unconscionability claims.

Section 34 review of an arbitral award is confined to narrow grounds and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's view for the arbitrator's. An award fixing interest at the contracted rate was sustained because the loan transactions and agreed interest were proved on the evidence before the arbitrator, while the challenge based on alleged fraud, unconscionability, and belated verification of handwriting failed. The court also noted that the request for handwriting verification had not been pursued by appeal after rejection of the interlocutory application, and that concluded contract terms cannot be rewritten by the court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award fixing interest at the contracted rate of 24% and rejecting the challenge based on alleged fraud and unconscionability warranted interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The award recorded that the loan transactions and the agreed contractual rate of interest were established on the evidence before the arbitrator. The challenge to the loan documents, including the request for handwriting verification, had been raised belatedly and was not pursued by way of an appeal against the interlocutory order rejecting that request. The Court held that the grounds available under Section 34 are narrow and do not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's view for that of the arbitrator. Reliance was placed on the principle that the arbitrator is the final judge of facts and that terms of a concluded contract cannot be rewritten by the court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the award failed, and the contractual rate of interest as awarded by the arbitrator was upheld.

---