Section 34 review of arbitration awards is narrow; contractual interpretation errors alone do not justify setting aside the award.

An arbitral award was upheld because the contractual clauses relied on by the objecting party did not expressly or by necessary implication bar the claims for escalation, idle labour, or retention-related damages. The tribunal's interpretation was sustained, especially since the finding that the employer caused about 20 months' delay was not challenged and the escalation bar was treated as limited to the originally contemplated contract period. The court reiterated that interference under Section 34 is confined to clear cases of perversity, patent illegality, or public policy violation, and not a reappreciation of the contract as in a regular appeal. The challenge failed and the award remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds that it was contrary to the contract, opposed to public policy, or otherwise unsustainable.

Analysis: The challenge turned on three contractual clauses said to bar escalation, idle labour claims, and retention-related damages. The award was sustained because the clauses did not expressly or by necessary implication prohibit the claims allowed by the arbitral tribunal. The finding that the employer caused about 20 months' delay was not challenged, and the tribunal's interpretation proceeded on the basis that the contractual bar on escalation operated only within the originally contemplated contract period. The objection based on idle labour was also not established, and the court reiterated that interference under Section 34 is confined to cases where perversity or public policy violation is clearly made out, not as if in a regular appeal.

Conclusion: The award was not shown to suffer from any ground warranting interference under Section 34, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The award was upheld and the petition challenging it was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award cannot be set aside under Section 34 merely because a party disputes the tribunal's contractual interpretation; interference is justified only where a cogent ground such as patent illegality, perversity, or violation of public policy is established.

---