Section 37 courts cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent arbitral findings absent jurisdictional error.

The Appellant–Municipal Council issued a tender for appointment of a Project Management Consultant to prepare a Detailed Project Report for construction of 3,000 tenements under the JNNURM-BSUP/PMAY scheme.

The Respondent was selected as the lowest bidder, and the parties executed an agreement dated 6 September 2016. The Respondent alleged that it had performed its contractual obligations but that the Appellant failed to release the payments due under the agreement, leading it to invoke arbitration.

By an Award dated 15 February 2024, the Sole Arbitrator partly allowed the Respondent’s claims, rejected the Appellant’s counterclaim and set-off, and directed payment of ₹6,72,96,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the respective due dates, along with ₹6,50,000 towards arbitration costs.

The Appellant’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed by the District Judge-2, Kalyan, on 29 June 2026.

The Appellant consequently preferred the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the Respondent had not completed its contractual obligations and was therefore not entitled to the awarded amount

Whether the subsequent agreement dated 5 November 2021 superseded or altered the parties’ obligations under the agreement dated 6 September 2016, and whether the Respondent’s alleged non-compliance with the subsequent agreement affected the award

Whether the Section 34 Court, and consequently the Section 37 appellate court, could re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with concurrent factual findings supporting the arbitral award

The Court applied Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which judicial interference with an arbitral award is limited and cannot be based on ordinary appellate re-appreciation of evidence.

It relied on M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corridor (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1001, which holds that a Section 37 court does not sit as a court of appeal on the merits of the award; interference is justified only where the Section 34 court exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise it within the statutory limits, particularly where the award is palpably perverse or unreasonable.

Concurrent findings under Sections 34 and 37 are entitled to substantial deference, and the arbitral tribunal remains the final authority on appreciation of evidence.

The Court found that the Respondent had performed its obligations under the agreement dated 6 September 2016 and that the Appellant had failed to release the Respondent’s legitimate dues.

The Arbitrator had specifically recorded in paragraph 70 of the Award that the agreement dated 5 November 2021 was never acted upon; therefore, the Appellant could not rely on that agreement to defeat or reduce the Respondent’s claim.

The Appellant’s objections essentially sought a fresh assessment of contractual performance and the evidence, which was impermissible in a Section 37 appeal.

Since neither the Arbitrator nor the Section 34 Court had committed an error of law, jurisdictional failure, perversity, or other ground warranting interference, the Court upheld the concurrent findings.

It held that the Respondent was entitled to the amount awarded under the operative agreement dated 6 September 2016, that the agreement dated 5 November 2021 had not been acted upon, and that no ground for interference under Section 37 was established.

The Commercial Arbitration Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Interim Application was disposed of as having become infructuous.