A Section 37 court cannot reappreciate evidence absent grounds under Section 34.

The appellant invoked arbitration against the first respondent, claiming ₹7.20 crore in damages for alleged wrongful termination, ₹72 lakh for loss of goodwill, and interest.

The arbitrator allowed the claim for return of the security deposit in part, allowed the respondent’s counterclaim in part, and rejected the appellant’s other claims for damages and compensation.

The appellant’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the non-grant of damages, was dismissed by the Commercial Court, which found no ground under Section 34 to set aside the award.

The appellant then filed this appeal under Section 37(1) of the Act.

1. Whether the appellant established a ground under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, warranting interference with the award’s rejection of its damages claims.

2. Whether the High Court, in an appeal under Section 37, could re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion absent a ground for setting aside the award under Section 34.

The Court applied Sections 34 and 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It held that the scope of an appeal under Section 37 is the same as the scope of review under Section 34 and that, where no Section 34 ground is established, the appellate court cannot re-appreciate the evidence merely to reach a different conclusion from the arbitrator.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The Commercial Court had found that the appellant’s challenge to the rejection of its damages claims disclosed no ground under Section 34 and that the award was based on evidence.

On reviewing the award and the Commercial Court’s order, the High Court likewise found no basis under Section 34 to interfere.

Applying the restricted scope of review under Sections 34 and 37, it declined to reassess the evidence or substitute a different factual conclusion.

It stated that, if the amount awarded had not been paid, the appellant could pursue execution proceedings.