Section 34 review of arbitral awards remains narrow, with perversity and patent illegality confined to limited, recognised grounds.

Section 34 interference with an arbitral award is confined to recognised grounds such as patent illegality or perversity, and not to reappreciation of evidence or a merits review. Perversity now falls within patent illegality only where a finding is based on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or is not a possible view. Applying that standard, the arbitrator's award on idling charges was supported by a reasoned assessment and conservative computation, while the deduction of delay compensation was rejected because the contract issues were duly considered, time was found not to be of the essence throughout, and no proved loss justified compensation. The award therefore did not disclose jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award, in respect of claims for idling charges and deduction of delay compensation, suffered from perversity or patent illegality so as to warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the limited grounds of perversity and patent illegality. The governing post-amendment standard under Section 34 permits interference only where the award is vitiated on recognised grounds, and not on a reappreciation of evidence or a merit-based review. Perversity, as now understood, falls within patent illegality only where the finding is based on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or reaches a view that is not even a possible one. On claims 7 to 9, the sole arbitrator examined the delay, assessed the evidence, rejected inflated computation, and awarded only a conservative sum supported by a reasoned methodology. On claim 12, the arbitrator framed and answered the relevant contractual issues, held that time was not of the essence throughout, found no established breach warranting compensation, and concluded that the deduction could not stand without proof of loss. The conclusions were within the arbitrator's domain of contractual construction and appreciation of material, and did not disclose any jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality.

Conclusion: The award was not liable to be set aside on the ground of perversity or patent illegality, and the challenge failed.

---