Arbitration commission is not an automatic entitlement and requires proof of specific project-related participation.

The Appellant, a consultancy firm, entered into a "Representative Agreement" dated 01.07.2012 with the Respondent to promote services in the Oil & Gas sector for customers including ONGC

The Agreement was non-exclusive, allowing the Respondent to sell directly to customers without paying commission, provided it advised the Appellant in writing beforehand

Following the termination of the agreement in 2017, disputes arose regarding unpaid commissions for two ONGC projects: "Uran" and "Hazira 42 HTPCS"

A Sole Arbitrator awarded commission for the Uran project but rejected the claim for the Hazira project and denied pre-suit interest

The Appellant’s Section 34 objections were dismissed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 23.04.2024

The Appellant then preferred this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Whether the Single Judge erred under Section 34 by declining to interfere with the Arbitrator’s rejection of the commission claim for the ONGC Hazira Project

Whether the denial of pre-institution interest on the awarded amount constitutes patent illegality or a violation of the Agreement

Whether the grounds urged by the Appellant fall within the limited scope of interference available under Section 37 of the Act

The Court applied Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the limited grounds for setting aside and appealing arbitral awards

It relied on *Associate Builders v. DDA*, establishing that "patent illegality" must go to the root of the matter and a plausible interpretation of a contract by an arbitrator cannot be substituted by the Court

The Court further cited *UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P.* to emphasize that the scope under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34

Regarding interest, the Court applied Section 31(7) of the Act, which grants the tribunal discretion to award interest for the period between the cause of action and the award, unless otherwise agreed by parties

The Court observed that the Arbitrator’s rejection of the Hazira project commission was based on a finding of fact: the Appellant failed to prove a nexus between its activities and the specific project award, as the Agreement required active promotion rather than a blanket entitlement to all sales

The Court held that the Arbitrator’s interpretation—that commission is linked to actual services rendered—was a "plausible view"

On the issue of interest, the Court noted that under Section 31(7), the grant of pre-reference interest is discretionary

Since the Appellant failed to show an express contractual mandate for such interest or that the Arbitrator's exercise of discretion was arbitrary, no interference was warranted

Finally, the Court reiterated that Section 37 does not permit a de novo merit review or reappreciation of evidence

It held that the Single Judge correctly applied the restricted standards of Section 34, and the Arbitral Award did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity

The refusal to award commission for the Hazira project and the denial of pre-suit interest were upheld as stay-within-bounds exercises of the Arbitrator's factual and discretionary powers