Section 34 courts cannot disturb a plausible arbitral interpretation or reappreciate evidence.

The parties executed an Agreement to Sell dated 17 January 2022 for land in Village Gadaipur, Delhi, for ₹22 crore. The agreement addressed several parcels, including land dependent on family settlements; Clause 6 specified 31 March 2022 as a deadline, while Clause 7 referred to a further parcel without stating a separate date

After some conveyances and payments, the petitioner sought further conveyance of the remaining land following a 2024 deed of exchange, invoked arbitration, and sought specific performance. The arbitrator dismissed that claim but directed refund of ₹97 lakh with interest and costs

The petitioner challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and sought interim restraint under Section 9

Whether the arbitral award disclosed a ground under Section 34 or Section 34(2A), including patent illegality or contravention of fundamental policy, warranting interference

Whether the arbitrator’s construction of Clauses 2, 6 and 7—particularly the application of the 31 March 2022 deadline to the agreement as a whole—was a permissible interpretation

Whether the arbitrator’s finding that the petitioner failed to establish readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was open to challenge under Section 34

Whether the petitioner’s Section 9 application remained necessary after dismissal of the Section 34 challenge

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits only limited review of an arbitral award; a court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its interpretation where the arbitrator has adopted a plausible view, and patent illegality must go to the root of the matter [*MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd.*, (2019) 4 SCC 163; *OPG Power Generation (P) Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (India) (P) Ltd.*, (2025) 2 SCC 417].

An arbitrator may interpret a contract but cannot rewrite it; a reasonable contractual interpretation is ordinarily not reviewable under Section 34.

Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, a claimant seeking specific performance must aver and prove performance, or continuous readiness and willingness, to perform essential contractual terms; readiness concerns capacity, including financial capacity, while willingness is assessed from conduct [*His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar*, (1996) 4 SCC 526].

The 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act narrowed the former general equitable discretion to refuse specific performance, but the statutory bar in Section 16(c) remains applicable.

The Court held that the arbitrator had addressed the challenge to the ATS’s authenticity and consideration, and that the record did not show an abdication of the duty to decide the framed issues.

It found the interpretation applying the 31 March 2022 deadline to Clauses 6 and 7 to be a plausible reading of the agreement; the post-deadline payments and conveyances related to the Clause 6 parcel and did not establish waiver as to the Neeta Anand parcel.

On readiness and willingness, the Court found that the arbitrator had considered the petitioner’s conduct and financial evidence. The certificates and other material did not establish readily deployable funds for the transaction, and the Court declined to reweigh that evidence.

The award therefore disclosed no reviewable ground under Section 34; with that challenge dismissed, the interim Section 9 application had become infructuous.

It disposed of the Section 9 petition as infructuous.