Arbitration review must stay limited: patent illegality cannot justify reappreciation of evidence or substitution of facts.

The SC reiterated that judicial review of arbitral awards must remain limited, and that Section 37 scrutiny cannot go beyond the narrow scope of Section 34. It held that reappreciation of evidence and substitution of a different factual view are impermissible, and that patent illegality must be a clear error going to the root of the award, not merely an alternate view of the facts. On extra-work claims, the tribunal's award of reasonable compensation was treated as restitutionary relief based on quantum meruit and Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, not as contractual rewriting. The award was restored and High Court interference was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference with an arbitral award by the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of patent illegality was sustainable after the award had already been affirmed under Section 34 of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contemplates minimal judicial intervention. The scope of interference under Section 34 is narrow, and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is even more limited and cannot exceed the constraints applicable under Section 34. Reappreciation of evidence and substitution of a different factual view are outside the permissible limits of scrutiny. Patent illegality must be a clear illegality going to the root of the award, and not a mere alternative view on facts or a different assessment of evidence. Where the arbitral tribunal has relied on oral and documentary material and has taken a plausible view, the award cannot be interfered with merely because the court would have reached a different conclusion. On the claim for extra work, the contract left the rate open and the tribunal's award of reasonable compensation was treated as a restitutionary determination based on quantum meruit and Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, rather than as rewriting the contract. The tribunal's other findings were also supported by some evidence and could not be branded as no-evidence findings or patent illegality.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference under Section 37 was unsustainable, and the arbitral award as affirmed by the Commercial Court was restored in favour of the appellant.

---