Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 34 – a great deal of restraint is required to be shown while examining the validity of an arbitral award when such an award has been upheld, wholly or substantially, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act- Frequent interference with arbitral awards would defeat the very purpose of the 1996 Act (Para 42) – The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 does not sit as a court of appeal over the decision of an arbitral tribunal, further reiterating the proposition that a contract has to be interpreted by the arbitrator who is the chosen judge of the parties. So long as the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one though it may not be the only possible view, there should be no interference by the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. (Para 25) – Interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. (Para 36)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 34 – Public policy of India –It means the fundamental policy of Indian law. Violation of Indian statutes linked to public policy or public interest and disregarding orders of superior courts in India would be regarded as being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. It would also mean that the arbitral award is against basic notions of justice or morality. An arbitral award can be set aside on the ground of patent illegality i.e. where the illegality goes to the root of the matter but re-appreciation of evidence cannot be permitted under the ground of patent illegality.