https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375458 Interference with an arbitral award remains confined to the narrow grounds under Section 34, and a court under Section 37 cannot conduct a fresh merits review beyond examining whether the Section 34 court exceeded its jurisdiction. On the contractual issue, the agreement, correspondence and conduct of the parties showed no separate arrangement excluding HTPL-related supplies from the agreement dated 14.12.1993. The supplier had received commission, participated in the transaction, and corresponded on letters of credit and dispatch, supporting the view that the sales were dealt with under that agreement. The arbitral tribunal's construction, affirmed by the HC, was treated as a reasonable and possible view, and no ground was made out to set aside the award. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Dec 2025 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375458 Interference with an arbitral award remains confined to the narrow grounds under Section 34, and a court under Section 37 cannot conduct a fresh merits review beyond examining whether the Section 34 court exceeded its jurisdiction. On the contractual issue, the agreement, correspondence and conduct of the parties showed no separate arrangement excluding HTPL-related supplies from the agreement dated 14.12.1993. The supplier had received commission, participated in the transaction, and corresponded on letters of credit and dispatch, supporting the view that the sales were dealt with under that agreement. The arbitral tribunal's construction, affirmed by the HC, was treated as a reasonable and possible view, and no ground was made out to set aside the award. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375458