https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442248 The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by reinterpreting the contract and substituting its view for that of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court reinstated the judgment of the Single Judge, affirming the Arbitral Tribunal's award and emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. The decision highlighted the importance of respecting arbitral awards' finality and parties' autonomy in choosing arbitration for dispute resolution. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Aug 2023 21:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442248 The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by reinterpreting the contract and substituting its view for that of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court reinstated the judgment of the Single Judge, affirming the Arbitral Tribunal's award and emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. The decision highlighted the importance of respecting arbitral awards' finality and parties' autonomy in choosing arbitration for dispute resolution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442248