https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313447 SC held that the HC exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by reassessing the merits of the arbitral award under the guise of "patent illegality." The Commercial Court had properly framed issues, applied Section 34, and was not acting as an appellate forum. No patent illegality apparent on the face of the award was demonstrated; the objections related only to alleged errors on merits, which are outside the permissible scope of judicial review. The HC's modification of the award and Commercial Court's order dated 12.09.2019 was set aside, and the arbitral award dated 16.02.2018 was restored in its entirety. en-us Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313447 SC held that the HC exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by reassessing the merits of the arbitral award under the guise of "patent illegality." The Commercial Court had properly framed issues, applied Section 34, and was not acting as an appellate forum. No patent illegality apparent on the face of the award was demonstrated; the objections related only to alleged errors on merits, which are outside the permissible scope of judicial review. The HC's modification of the award and Commercial Court's order dated 12.09.2019 was set aside, and the arbitral award dated 16.02.2018 was restored in its entirety. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313447