Arbitral award interference remains limited to perversity or narrow statutory grounds; contemporaneous correspondence can outweigh later oral testimony.

Delhi HC reiterated that an arbitral award may be interfered with only on the narrow statutory grounds under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and not merely because another view of the evidence is possible. On a plausible reading of the contract and contemporaneous correspondence, the Court upheld the finding that delay in handing over the site affected reciprocal obligations and supported the award's reliance on the sequence of reciprocal promises and compensation principles under the Contract Act. The award was sustained on claims for price escalation and reimbursement of taxes to the extent granted, while the excise duty claim was rejected under the contract. Interest was moderated, but the award was otherwise upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside or modified under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the claimant was entitled to the reliefs awarded with modification of interest.

Analysis: The objections to the award were examined on the settled principle that the Court does not sit in appeal over an arbitral award and will interfere only where the award is perverse or falls within the narrow grounds for setting aside under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The award was found to rest on a plausible appreciation of the contractual terms and the contemporaneous correspondence, showing delay in handing over the site and the resulting impact on performance of reciprocal obligations. The Arbitrator's reliance on the sequence of reciprocal promises and the compensation provisions in the Contract Act was upheld. The claim for price escalation and reimbursement of taxes was accepted to the extent allowed by the award, while the excise duty claim was rejected in view of the contractual stipulation. Interest was, however, moderated by the Court.

Conclusion: The award was upheld with modification only in respect of interest, and the objections to the award were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible on the evidence or contract; interference is justified only if the award is perverse or otherwise falls within the limited statutory grounds, and contemporaneous documents may properly prevail over later oral testimony in assessing contractual delay and liability.

---