https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306790 For domestic arbitral awards, judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to cases of perversity, irrationality, patent illegality, or an interpretation of the contract that is not even a possible view. The Court reaffirmed that construction of contractual terms is primarily for the arbitrator, but an award may still be vulnerable if vital clauses are ignored, irrelevant factors are relied on, or the result conflicts with the fundamental policy of Indian law. Applying that standard, the Court found no basis to disturb the High Court's refusal to review its judgment, and the arbitral awards were not restored. en-us Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306790 For domestic arbitral awards, judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to cases of perversity, irrationality, patent illegality, or an interpretation of the contract that is not even a possible view. The Court reaffirmed that construction of contractual terms is primarily for the arbitrator, but an award may still be vulnerable if vital clauses are ignored, irrelevant factors are relied on, or the result conflicts with the fundamental policy of Indian law. Applying that standard, the Court found no basis to disturb the High Court's refusal to review its judgment, and the arbitral awards were not restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306790