https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447896 In challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot modify an arbitral award or substitute its own view on the merits; it may only uphold the award or set it aside on recognised grounds such as public policy or patent illegality. The court below therefore acted beyond the permissible scope of review by reducing the award. The reduction of contractual interest was also unjustified, as the arbitrator's interest award was supported by Section 31(7) and lacked any adequate legal basis for curtailment. The award was restored, with interest adjusted to 9% per annum. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:14:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447896 In challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot modify an arbitral award or substitute its own view on the merits; it may only uphold the award or set it aside on recognised grounds such as public policy or patent illegality. The court below therefore acted beyond the permissible scope of review by reducing the award. The reduction of contractual interest was also unjustified, as the arbitrator's interest award was supported by Section 31(7) and lacked any adequate legal basis for curtailment. The award was restored, with interest adjusted to 9% per annum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447896