Section 37 courts cannot reappreciate concurrent factual findings supporting an arbitral award.

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (“AUDA”) awarded the respondent a tender for development and fencing of open plots in T.P. Scheme Nos. 1 to 5 at Vejalpur. The respondent raised claims of approximately ₹14,32,470.17 with interest before the learned sole arbitrator.

AUDA disputed the claims, contending that the work had not been completed, that certain works were subsequently carried out by Vishnu Trading Company, and that encroachment affected Final Plot Nos. 214 and 216.

The arbitrator passed awards dated 3 November 2009 and 11 October 2009, with a subsequent order dated 26 November 2009.

AUDA’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed by the Civil Court on 12 June 2012, which held that AUDA had failed to substantiate its objections by documentary or other cogent evidence.

AUDA thereafter filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act challenging the arbitral awards on the grounds that relevant factual aspects had not been considered and that the claims were awarded without cogent evidence.

The Court applied Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 provides the limited statutory grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, while Section 37 confines appellate interference to the parameters applicable to such orders and does not permit a fresh examination of the merits or re-appreciation of evidence.

The Court reiterated that a mere error of fact or law, or a plea that relevant documents were allegedly not considered, is insufficient to interfere with an arbitral award where the arbitrator’s findings are based on the record and are not perverse or patently illegal.

Concurrent factual findings rendered by the arbitrator and affirmed by the Section 34 Court are therefore not ordinarily open to reconsideration under Section 37.

The Court found that the arbitrator had considered the documentary record, including the respondent’s letter dated 23 September 2002, which indicated completion of the work and sought extension in relation to delay in auditing the bill.

The arbitrator also relied on other documents to conclude that AUDA’s objection regarding non-completion was a belated afterthought.

AUDA failed to produce documentary evidence establishing that the respondent had not completed the work, that Vishnu Trading Company had completed the remaining work, or that encroachment affected Final Plot Nos. 214 and 216.

It also failed to produce detailed measurements or other relevant records, justifying an adverse inference and leaving no sufficient basis to disbelieve the respondent’s detailed final bill.

Since the objections involved factual determinations already concurrently decided against AUDA and no perversity, patent illegality, or other permissible ground for interference was demonstrated, the High Court held that Section 37 did not authorise re-appreciation of the evidence or the merits of the award.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no order was made as to costs.