Scope of Appeal under Section 37 is limited to examining whether the Section 34 Court exceeded its jurisdiction.

The parties entered into a Contract Agreement on 07.12.2012 for certain works

The Arbitrator, vide award dated 23.01.2020, awarded the Respondent ₹4,80,37,967/-, finding that the termination of the contract by the Appellant was wrongful due to a force majeure event (Nepal earthquake)

The Appellant challenged this award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, primarily alleging a computational error in Claim No. 6 (Performance Bank Guarantee - PBG) and Claim No. 12

Specifically, the Appellant argued that a mobilization advance of ₹93,01,410/- already recovered was not adjusted in the PBG refund

The Single Judge dismissed the Section 34 petition on 24.07.2024, noting that this adjustment plea was never raised before the Arbitrator

The Appellant then filed this appeal under Section 37, restricting the challenge solely to Claim No. 6

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining to interfere with the Award under Section 34 when the Appellant alleged a failure to account for the adjustment of mobilization advance in Claim No. 6.

2. Whether the Court in an appeal under Section 37 can entertain a fresh factual plea regarding computational errors that was not raised before the Arbitrator.

The Court applied Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs appeals against orders setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award

The scope of interference under Section 37 is narrower than under Section 34 and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or de novo factual findings, as established in MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and NHAI v. M. Hakeem.

The supervisory role of the court is limited to instances of patent illegality or jurisdictional error as per McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.

The Court observed that Claim No. 6 (PBG refund) and Claim No. 7 (Mobilization Advance) were distinct. The Arbitrator found the contract termination illegal, making the PBG encashment wrongful

Regarding the alleged non-adjustment of ₹93,01,410/-, the Court noted that the Appellant failed to raise this specific plea in its Statement of Defence before the Arbitrator

the Respondent filed an affidavit clarifying that the mobilization advance was indeed adjusted through RA bills and PBG encashment, and the final award was computed after such adjustments

The Court reasoned that to interfere would require a reconciliation of accounts and re-evaluation of facts, which is prohibited under Section 37

Since the Appellant could not demonstrate "patent illegality" but only a "speculative apprehension" of double payment, no grounds for interference existed

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the learned Single Judge correctly declined to interfere with the Award. The final order upheld the judgment dated 24.07.2024 and dismissed the Appellant's challenge to the computation of Claim No. 6