Section 34 interference stays narrow: arbitral findings stood, and pre-award interest was refused absent contractual delay.

A Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award will fail where the award is supported by contractual interpretation and factual findings that are neither perverse nor contrary to law; the court will not reappreciate evidence or undertake appellate review absent a recognised ground such as conflict with public policy or patent illegality. On the facts noted, the tribunal had already considered the limitation plea, the due-diligence objection, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code objection, and interference was unwarranted. Pre-award interest was also declined because the relevant contract triggered interest only on delay, and no contractual delay in passing on the monies was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award warranted interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds of public policy, patent illegality, limitation, and the IBC-related objection. (ii) Whether the claimant was entitled to pre-award interest on the awarded sum.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award warranted interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds of public policy, patent illegality, limitation, and the IBC-related objection.

Analysis: The scope of interference under Section 34 is narrow and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or appellate review of contractual interpretation. Interference is justified only on the limited statutory grounds, including conflict with public policy or patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. The arbitral tribunal had considered the contractual terms, the due-diligence objection, the limitation plea, and the objection based on Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and its findings were not shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the award on these grounds failed and the award was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimant was entitled to pre-award interest on the awarded sum.

Analysis: The interest clause in the assignment agreement was attracted only on delay in making payment. On the facts found by the arbitral tribunal, there was no contractual delay by the petitioner in passing on the ECGC monies so as to justify pre-award interest. The tribunal's refusal to grant interest before the award date was consistent with the agreement and did not disclose any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The claim for pre-award interest was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was not shown to suffer from any ground warranting interference under Section 34, and both petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a Section 34 challenge, the court cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own interpretation of the contract unless the award is vitiated by a statutory ground such as patent illegality or conflict with public policy; likewise, pre-award interest depends on the contractual trigger of delay and cannot be awarded absent such delay.

---