Scope of Section 37 Appeal limited to verifying Section 34 compliance 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 2014-15

The appellant claimed that despite supplying 70,454 quintals of wheat, an amount of ₹12,10,747.50/- remained unpaid

The appellant initiated proceedings before the Collector, Harda (Arbitrator), who dismissed the claim on 13.02.2020, citing discrepancies in supply records and a failure by the appellant to substantiate the alleged shortage with cogent evidence

The appellant challenged this under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Principal District Judge, Harda. The Judge dismissed the application on 30.06.2022, holding that the grounds raised required an impermissible reappreciation of evidence

The appellant subsequently filed this appeal under Section 37 of the Act

1. Whether the findings of the Arbitrator and the Section 34 Court suffered from perversity, patent illegality, or violation of public policy warranting interference under Section 37

2. Whether a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 can reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view on the merits of the arbitral award

The court applied Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limit judicial intervention to specific grounds such as fraud, bias, or violation of natural justice

It relied on McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., establishing that the court's supervisory role is minimal and it cannot correct errors of the arbitrator

It further cited MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited and Dyna Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. to affirm that Section 34 is not a normal appellate jurisdiction and the finality of awards must be respected.

Finally, it applied Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills, which clarifies that Section 37 jurisdiction is more akin to "superintendence" and prohibits reappraisal of evidence

The High Court observed that the scope of Section 37 is strictly confined to verifying whether the Section 34 court exceeded its limited jurisdiction

In the present case, the Arbitrator (Collector) had returned factual findings based on a thorough review of procurement records, weighment documents, and correspondence, concluding there were discrepancies in the quantity acknowledged

The Section 34 court correctly refused to act as a court of appeal, noting that the appellant was merely seeking a reappreciation of facts

The High Court found that the appellant failed to point out any perversity or legal infirmity that met the high threshold of "patent illegality" or "violation of public policy"

The court emphasized that even if another view of the evidence were possible, the arbitrator’s view must prevail so long as it is reasonable

The court held that it lacks the authority to conduct an independent assessment of the merits or reappreciate evidence under Section 37

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Principal District Judge, Harda, affirming the Arbitrator's award, was upheld