Section 37 appellate review in arbitration remains confined to Section 34 limits; merits reassessment is impermissible.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 37 appellate interference is confined to checking whether the Section 34 court stayed within its narrow jurisdiction and did not exceed the limited grounds for setting aside an award. The appellate court cannot reappraise evidence, conduct an independent merits review, or substitute another possible view for the arbitral tribunal's view. Applying that restraint, the arbitral award could not be disturbed because it was supported by evidence and no recognised Section 34 infirmity, such as conflict with public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or the agreement, had been shown. The High Court's interference was therefore legally unsustainable, and the award stood restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the scope of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends beyond the limited grounds available under Section 34 of the Act; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the arbitral award after it had been upheld by the court under Section 34 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the scope of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends beyond the limited grounds available under Section 34 of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Act places minimal judicial intervention at the forefront. Section 34 permits interference with an award only on narrow, specified grounds, including conflict with the public policy of India, which may encompass fraud, corruption, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, or conflict with the most basic notions of morality and justice. Section 37 provides an appeal, but that appeal is confined to examining whether the court under Section 34 stayed within its jurisdiction and did not exceed it. The appellate court cannot undertake an independent merits review, reappraise evidence, or substitute another possible view for the view taken by the arbitral tribunal.

Conclusion: The scope of interference under Section 37 does not travel beyond the restrictions applicable under Section 34.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the arbitral award after it had been upheld by the court under Section 34 of the Act.

Analysis: The arbitral award was based on evidence and was found to be reasonable. It was not shown to be contrary to public policy, the fundamental policy of Indian law, any substantive provision of law, or the terms of the agreement. In such circumstances, the appellate court could not interfere merely because it preferred a different view. The High Court, while exercising Section 37 jurisdiction, acted beyond the permissible limits by setting aside the award without identifying any infirmity of the kind recognised under Section 34.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the award.

Final Conclusion: The award stood restored, and the appellate interference by the High Court was held to be legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot re-examine the merits of an arbitral award or substitute its own view unless the Section 34 court has exceeded or failed to exercise the limited jurisdiction vested in it.

---