https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751244 Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court under Sections 34 and 37 cannot substitute its own reading of a contract where technical arbitrators have adopted a plausible interpretation of embankment measurement; interference is warranted only for perversity, patent illegality, or an unreasonable construction. The Court also clarified that a dissenting opinion in a multi-member arbitral tribunal is not part of the binding award and cannot displace the majority decision. On that basis, the arbitral awards were restored, the High Court's judgments were set aside, and relief was maintained subject only to modification on interest. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751244 Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court under Sections 34 and 37 cannot substitute its own reading of a contract where technical arbitrators have adopted a plausible interpretation of embankment measurement; interference is warranted only for perversity, patent illegality, or an unreasonable construction. The Court also clarified that a dissenting opinion in a multi-member arbitral tribunal is not part of the binding award and cannot displace the majority decision. On that basis, the arbitral awards were restored, the High Court's judgments were set aside, and relief was maintained subject only to modification on interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751244