https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105477 Judicial interference with a non-speaking arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is confined to the limited grounds in sections 30 and 33. A court cannot reappraise evidence, substitute its own conclusions for those of the arbitrator or umpire, or infer error by probing the arbitrator's mental process from a fresh review of the record. Interference is justified only where the award shows misconduct, follows supersession or invalid proceedings, or discloses patent illegality, perversity, or an error of law apparent on the face of the award. The High Court's merits-based scrutiny exceeded this narrow scope, and the award should not have been set aside. en-us Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105477 Judicial interference with a non-speaking arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is confined to the limited grounds in sections 30 and 33. A court cannot reappraise evidence, substitute its own conclusions for those of the arbitrator or umpire, or infer error by probing the arbitrator's mental process from a fresh review of the record. Interference is justified only where the award shows misconduct, follows supersession or invalid proceedings, or discloses patent illegality, perversity, or an error of law apparent on the face of the award. The High Court's merits-based scrutiny exceeded this narrow scope, and the award should not have been set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105477