While adjudicating an appeal against a judgment assailing an arbitral award in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited v. Samir Narain Bhojwani [2024] 7 S.C.R. 136 : 2024 INSC 478, the Supreme Court held that the court deciding an appeal u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 of the Act has not exceeded the scope of the provision.
It affirmed the findings in MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited, wherein it was held that as far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per Section 37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Thus, it is evident that in case an arbitral award has been confirmed by the court under Section 34 and by the court in an appeal under Section 37, this Court must be extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings.
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with a petition under Section 34. It is the duty of the Appellate Court to consider whether Section 34 Court has remained confined to the grounds of challenge that are available in a petition under Section 34. The ultimate function of the Appellate Court under Section 37 is to decide whether the jurisdiction under Section 34 has been exercised rightly or wrongly. While doing so, the Appellate Court can exercise the same power and jurisdiction that Section 34 Court possesses with the same constraints.