Scope of interference under Section 37 is limited to verifying compliance with Section 34 parameters.

The appellants’ land was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for the construction of NH-69A via an order dated 14.02.2012, awarding compensation of ₹3,74,380/-

Dissatisfied, the appellants moved the Sole Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, alleging undervaluation and procedural lapses

The Arbitrator dismissed the claim on 06.08.2013, citing a failure to prove inadequacy

The appellants then filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, on 25.03.2021

This prompted an appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.

1. Whether the arbitral award and the subsequent Section 34 order were liable to be set aside due to alleged procedural violations and inadequate compensation

2. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act of 1996, can reappreciate evidence or substitute the Arbitrator’s view

The court applied Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limits appellate jurisdiction to the grounds available under Section 34

It relied on McDermott International Inc v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., establishing that court intervention is restricted to cases of fraud, bias, or natural justice violations

It further cited MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited and Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. v. Sanman Rice Mills, which reinforce that Section 37 proceedings are summary in nature and courts cannot act as a regular court of appeal to reappraise evidence or merit

Additionally, it referenced Dyna Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. regarding the sanctity of the arbitral award unless patent perversity exists

The High Court observed that the scope of Section 37 is extremely narrow, intended only to ensure the lower court did not exceed its Section 34 powers

Reviewing the record, the Court found that the Commercial Court had considered every point raised by the appellants

It noted that the appellants failed to demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity, or violation of public policy in the award

Since the Arbitrator had evaluated the market value and the appellants failed to raise timely objections or evidence, the court held that it could not substitute its own view for that of the Arbitrator merely because an alternative interpretation might exist

The destruction of old records also made it impossible to substantiate claims of denied evidence rounds

The High Court affirmed that it lacks the authority to conduct a merit-based reassessment of compensation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the III Additional District Judge upholding the arbitral award was sustained