https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191172 In a challenge to an arbitral award, the court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate forum under Section 37. Interference is limited to statutory grounds such as jurisdictional error, patent illegality going to the root of the matter, or a true public policy violation, and a possible view taken by the arbitrator cannot be displaced merely because another view is available. Claims for prolongation, overheads and price escalation were upheld because the arbitrator's reasoned findings, contract construction, and use of the Hudson formula could not be substituted by the court's preferred approach. Clause 10C and Clause 22 did not justify reducing the award, and the restoration of the award was affirmed in full. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191172 In a challenge to an arbitral award, the court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate forum under Section 37. Interference is limited to statutory grounds such as jurisdictional error, patent illegality going to the root of the matter, or a true public policy violation, and a possible view taken by the arbitrator cannot be displaced merely because another view is available. Claims for prolongation, overheads and price escalation were upheld because the arbitrator's reasoned findings, contract construction, and use of the Hudson formula could not be substituted by the court's preferred approach. Clause 10C and Clause 22 did not justify reducing the award, and the restoration of the award was affirmed in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191172