Scope of Section 37 Appeal is Limited to Verifying Proper Exercise of Section 34 Jurisdiction Without Reappreciation of Evidence

The appellant, a registered Co-operative Society, entered into an agreement with the respondent for the procurement and transportation of wheat during 2011-12

The appellant claimed that despite supplying 172279 quintals of wheat, the respondent failed to pay an outstanding amount of ₹17,65,188.24, totaling a claim of ₹22,04,407

The Collector, Harda (acting as Arbitrator), dismissed the claim on 13.02.2020, citing discrepancies in supply quantities and the appellant's failure to provide cogent evidence despite multiple notices

The appellant challenged this under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Principal District Judge, Harda, who dismissed the application on 30.06.2022, holding that the appellant was impermissibly seeking a reappreciation of evidence

The appellant subsequently filed this appeal under Section 37

1. Whether the grounds for interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were made out given the concurrent findings of the Arbitrator and the Section 34 Court

2. Whether the court can reappreciate evidence or substitute its view on merits while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act

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

McDermott International Inc vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., establishing that the court's role is supervisory and limited to ensuring fairness, not correcting arithmetical or factual errors

MMTC Limited vs. Vedanta Limited and Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. vs. Sanman Rice Mills, which dictate that under Section 37, courts cannot undertake independent assessments of merits or disturb concurrent findings unless there is patent perversity or a violation of public policy

The High Court observed that the scope of Section 37 is extremely narrow and restricted to determining if the Section 34 Court exceeded its jurisdiction

The court noted that the Principal District Judge had correctly identified that the appellant’s challenge essentially requested a reappreciation of facts and evidence—specifically regarding wheat quantities and billing discrepancies—which is prohibited under the Act

The High Court found that the Arbitrator had considered all documents, including weighment slips and correspondence, and reached a "possible view"

Since the appellant failed to demonstrate any "unpardonable perversity," violation of natural justice, or conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law, the court held there was no basis to disturb the findings

The High Court affirmed that the lower court’s order was in consonance with the scheme of the Act and not against public policy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Collector and the Principal District Judge were upheld