Section 37 courts cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb plausible arbitral findings affirmed under Section 34.

The State awarded the contractor a bridge-construction contract.

The work was completed 2,191 days after the scheduled date.

The contractor attributed most of the delay to the State; the State alleged that the contractor’s own lack of progress caused it.

A three-member arbitral tribunal attributed 1,994 days of delay to the State and awarded the contractor principal sums, interest and costs.

The Commercial Court dismissed the State’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, finding no ground to set aside the award.

The State appealed under Section 37, challenging, among other things, the delay findings, contractual entitlement to claims, acceptance of the final bill, escalation and interest.

Whether the Commercial Court erred in refusing to set aside the award under Section 34, such that interference was warranted under Section 37.

Whether the tribunal’s findings and awards concerning delay, contractual claims, the final bill, escalation and interest disclosed patent illegality or conflict with public policy.

Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confine judicial review of arbitral awards; Section 37 review cannot exceed the limits of Section 34, and an appellate court may interfere where the Section 34 court exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction.

Under Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, a court does not sit in appeal over the award, reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for a plausible arbitral interpretation; the tribunal is the “ultimate master” of the quantity and quality of evidence.

MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. and Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills confirm the restricted scope of Section 37 review.

ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. requires consideration of the contract when assessing entitlement to damages, while Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Construction recognises that an arbitrator cannot travel beyond the contract but that a contractual-interpretation error ordinarily remains within jurisdiction.

Section 31(7) governs arbitral interest; absent a contractual bar, the tribunal may award interest within its statutory discretion.

The Court held that the tribunal’s attribution of 1,994 days of delay to the State was supported by evidence and was a possible factual conclusion; the State’s objections sought impermissible reappraisal of the record.

The tribunal’s interpretations of the notice provisions, loss of profit, acceptance of the final bill and escalation were also plausible and did not establish patent illegality or perversity.

The Court found no duplication in the interest awards: pendente lite interest ran from the tribunal’s first sitting, while other amounts compensated delayed payment of sums withheld under the State’s bills.

No contractual provision barring that compensation was identified.

The Commercial Court therefore remained within its Section 34 jurisdiction in declining to set aside the award.

The Calcutta High Court affirmed the Commercial Court’s judgment and upheld the arbitral award dated 29 September 2014, as corrected on 16 October 2014.

No order as to costs was made.