Section 37 courts cannot interfere with plausible arbitral interpretations or findings based on unrebutted evidence.

The dispute pertains to a group housing project, "Antriksh Sanskriti," in Ghaziabad

In 2006, the land-owning Society initially engaged the Appellant for development, but due to financial constraints, a tripartite Collaboration Agreement was executed on 09.02.2010, inducting Respondent No. 1 as the subsequent developer

The agreement capped Respondent No. 1’s liability for statutory dues at ₹11 Crores

Disputes arose regarding the liability for additional statutory payments to the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), project delays, and site sealing

In arbitration, the Appellant’s claims of ₹710 Crores were rejected, while Respondent No. 1’s counterclaims were partially allowed to the extent of ₹12,01,01,524/-, including a ₹9 Crore claim for "financial assistance" provided to the Appellant

The Appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 10.05.2024

The Appellant subsequently filed this appeal under Section 37 of the Act.

1. Whether the Single Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act by not adequately examining grounds of patent illegality and perversity

2. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s finding on limitation regarding the counterclaims was ex-facie contrary to law

3. Whether the award suffered from a total absence of evidence regarding the allowed counterclaims, specifically the ₹9 Crore financial assistance

4. Whether the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the Collaboration Agreement regarding the allocation of statutory dues constituted a plausible view

The court applied Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which restrict judicial interference to grounds of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, prohibiting a merits-based review or re-appreciation of evidence

It relied on Section 19(4) of the Act, which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to determine the admissibility and weight of evidence without being strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Regarding limitation, it applied the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2020) concerning the COVID-19 pandemic

Furthermore, it applied the evidentiary principle from Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi, holding that failure to cross-examine a witness on a crucial point leads to an inference that the testimony is admitted

The Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 37 is limited to ensuring the Section 34 court did not overlook patent illegalities

Regarding contractual interpretation, the Arbitrator’s distinction between statutory dues (capped at ₹11 Cr) and construction costs was found to be a "plausible view" arising from the Collaboration Agreement; therefore, the Court refused to substitute its own interpretation

On the issue of limitation, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 extension orders, noting that since the Tribunal applied a legally sustainable exclusion, the finding was not ex-facie illegal

Concerning the "no evidence" plea for the ₹9 Crore counterclaim, the Court found that the Appellant had failed to specifically deny the receipt of funds in its pleadings and had not cross-examined the Respondent's witness (RW-2) on this point

Under Section 19(4), the Arbitrator was entitled to weigh this lack of rebuttal as sufficient evidence. The Court concluded that the Appellant’s challenge was merely a request for re-appreciation of the weight of evidence, which is impermissible under Section 37

The Court held that the Arbitral Award was based on a plausible interpretation of the contract and unrebutted evidence, and did not suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error

The counterclaims were held to be within time due to the Supreme Court’s pandemic-related limitation extensions

The Impugned Judgment of the Single Judge was affirmed