Section 37 courts cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent patent illegality.

The Respondent, a registered non-government organisation, was appointed as the Project Management Consultant for preparing a Detailed Project Report for construction of 3,000 tenements under the JNNURM-BSUP/PMAY scheme pursuant to an agreement dated 6 September 2016.

Alleging non-payment of contractual dues despite performing its 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 counter-claim and set-off, and directed payment of ₹6,72,96,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accrual until realization, along with ₹6,50,000 towards arbitration costs.

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

The Appellant thereafter preferred the present appeal under Section 37.

Whether the arbitral award awarding the Respondent its contractual dues was liable to be set aside on the ground that the Respondent had not completed its obligations under the agreement dated 6 September 2016.

Whether the subsequent agreement dated 5 November 2021 superseded or altered the parties’ earlier contractual arrangement and rendered the Respondent’s claim unsustainable.

Whether the Appellant’s contentions required impermissible re-appreciation of evidence in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court applied Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which judicial interference with an arbitral award is narrowly limited and Section 37 does not confer ordinary appellate jurisdiction over the merits of the award.

The appellate court under Section 37 must examine whether the Section 34 court acted within the statutory limits and may interfere only where those limits were exceeded or not properly exercised.

The Court relied on M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corridor (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1001, which reiterates that arbitral tribunals are the final authorities on appreciation of evidence, that concurrent findings under Sections 34 and 37 warrant substantial deference, and that an award should not be disturbed merely because another factual or contractual interpretation is possible.

The Court found that the Respondent had performed its obligations under the agreement dated 6 September 2016 and was compelled to commence arbitration only because the Appellant failed to release the 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 remaining objections—concerning performance, contractual interpretation and the quantum of the award—amounted to an invitation to re-appreciate evidence.

Such re-appreciation was outside the limited scope of Section 37, particularly when both the Arbitrator and the Section 34 court had reached consistent findings without legal or factual error.

It held that there was no error of law or fact in the award or in the judgment dismissing the Section 34 application, and that the Appellant’s challenge was impermissible on the basis of re-appreciation of evidence.

The Section 37 appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The Interim Application consequently did not survive and was disposed of.