https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108670 Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits only limited judicial interference with an arbitral award, confined to the statutory grounds and a narrowly construed public policy challenge. A court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view for that of the arbitral forum merely because another conclusion is possible. On the facts discussed, inconsistencies in the petitioners' version, absence of supporting contractual documents, discrepancies in delivery records, and failure to prove title to shares supported the arbitral findings and did not justify interference. The challenge to the award therefore failed. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:45:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108670 Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits only limited judicial interference with an arbitral award, confined to the statutory grounds and a narrowly construed public policy challenge. A court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view for that of the arbitral forum merely because another conclusion is possible. On the facts discussed, inconsistencies in the petitioners' version, absence of supporting contractual documents, discrepancies in delivery records, and failure to prove title to shares supported the arbitral findings and did not justify interference. The challenge to the award therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108670