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

The Kulgaon Badlapur 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.

M/s. Sparsh Pratishthan was selected as the lowest bidder, and the parties executed an agreement dated 6 September 2016.

Disputes arose when the Municipal Council allegedly failed to release payments despite the Respondent having performed its contractual obligations.

The Respondent invoked arbitration.

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

The Municipal Council’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 Municipal Council consequently preferred the present appeal under Section 37.

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Whether the subsequent agreement dated 5 November 2021 superseded or altered the parties’ obligations under the agreement dated 6 September 2016, and whether the Respondent’s alleged non-compliance with the subsequent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

Whether the High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37, could re-appreciate the evidence or adopt a different interpretation of the contractual documents.

The Court applied Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which impose narrow limits on judicial interference with arbitral awards.

A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 does not sit as an ordinary appellate court on the merits of the award; it examines whether the Section 34 court acted within the statutory limits.

Interference is warranted only where the Section 34 court exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully, or where the award is palpably perverse or unreasonable.

Relying on M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corridor (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1001, the Court reiterated that the arbitral tribunal is ordinarily the final authority on appreciation of evidence and that concurrent findings under Sections 34 and 37 deserve substantial deference.

The Court found that the Respondent had performed its obligations under the agreement dated 6 September 2016 and that arbitration was invoked only after the Municipal Council failed to release the Respondent’s legitimate dues.

The Arbitrator had specifically recorded that the agreement dated 5 November 2021 was never acted upon, defeating the Appellant’s contention that it superseded the earlier agreement or governed the Respondent’s entitlement.

The Appellant’s remaining objections sought reconsideration of the evidence and contractual interpretation already undertaken by the Arbitrator and the Section 34 court.

Such re-appreciation was impermissible under the limited scope of Section 37, particularly in the absence of any legal error, perversity, or jurisdictional failure.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, thereby confirming the award directing the Municipal Council to pay ₹6,72,96,000 with 12% per annum interest and ₹6,50,000 towards arbitration costs.

The accompanying Interim Application was disposed of as infructuous.