Scope of Section 37 appeal is limited to verifying adherence to Section 34 parameters without reappreciating evidence.

The appellant, a registered Co-operative Society, entered into an agreement with the respondent for the procurement and transportation of wheat during 2013-14

The appellant claimed it supplied 82,390.41 quintals but was not paid Rs. 13,33,500/- plus additional claims totaling Rs. 16,37,159/-

The Collector, Harda, acting as an arbitrator, dismissed the claim on 13.02.2020, citing failure to establish entitlement due to discrepancies in quantity and lack of cogent evidence

The appellant’s challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Harda, on 01.07.2022, on the grounds that the court cannot reappreciate evidence

The appellant then moved the High Court under Section 37

1. Whether the grounds for interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were made out to set aside the order passed under Section 34

2. Whether the Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37, can reappreciate the evidence or findings of fact recorded by the Arbitrator

The court applied Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which restrict judicial intervention to specific grounds such as patent illegality or violation of public policy

It relied on the principle from McDermott International Inc vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. that the court’s role is supervisory and cannot correct arbitral errors

It further invoked MMTC Limited vs. Vedanta Limited and Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. vs. Sanman Rice Mills to establish that the scope of Section 37 is narrower than Section 34 and prohibits the reappraisal of evidence if the arbitrator’s view is a possible one.

The High Court observed that the learned Principal District Judge had correctly exercised jurisdiction by refusing to reappreciate the merits of the case

The Court noted that the Collector (Arbitrator) had based the original dismissal on discrepancies in procurement records and the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation despite multiple notices

Applying the precedents, the Court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity, irregularity, or violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law

Since the Arbitrator had applied his mind to the pleadings and evidence, and the Section 34 court had confirmed the award, the High Court held that it must be "extremely cautious and slow" to disturb concurrent findings, especially when the grounds urged essentially sought a factual review, which is impermissible under Section 37

The High Court affirmed that the award and the subsequent Section 34 order were in consonance with the scheme of the Act and did not violate public policy. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs