https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95226 Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including "patent illegality" under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. "Patent illegality" requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC en-us Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95226 Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including "patent illegality" under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. "Patent illegality" requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC Highlights Indian Laws Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95226