Limited appellate review in arbitration: courts cannot reappreciate evidence or replace a reasonable arbitral view.

In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for a possible and reasonable conclusion reached by the arbitrator. Section 34 permits only limited interference with an arbitral award on recognised grounds, and Section 37 does not enlarge that scope or allow the appellate court to sit in appeal over the arbitral reasoning. Where the award is supported by the record and falls within a permissible view, it must be left undisturbed. The arbitral award and the Section 34 order were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could reappreciate the evidence and interfere with an arbitral award that had been sustained by the trial court under Section 34 of the Act.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 34 is narrowly confined, and interference with an arbitral award is justified only within the limited grounds recognised by that provision. An appellate court under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the confines of Section 34 or sit in appeal over the arbitrator's conclusions. Where the arbitrator's view is based on the evidence and materials on record and represents a possible and reasonable conclusion, the High Court cannot substitute its own assessment by reappreciating the evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court was not entitled to reappreciate the evidence or disturb the award on the facts found. The award and the order of the trial court under Section 34 were restored, in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court cannot exceed the limited scope of interference available under Section 34 or substitute its own view for a possible and reasonable view taken by the arbitrator on the evidence.

---