https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251034 Interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to narrow grounds. A court will not reappraise evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible; interference lies only for an apparent error, perversity, or disregard of settled law. On the stated facts, the arbitrator had considered the agreement, payment obligations, and interest, and no perversity or other cogent ground was shown to set the award aside. Contentions raised for the first time before the SC did not justify interference, so the challenge to the award failed. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:39:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251034 Interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to narrow grounds. A court will not reappraise evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible; interference lies only for an apparent error, perversity, or disregard of settled law. On the stated facts, the arbitrator had considered the agreement, payment obligations, and interest, and no perversity or other cogent ground was shown to set the award aside. Contentions raised for the first time before the SC did not justify interference, so the challenge to the award failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251034