Findings of fact as well as of law of the Arbitrator/ Arbitral Tribunal are ordinarily not amenable to interference under Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that “the finding of facts as well as of law by the Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal is not be interfered with unless the finding is either contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties or, ex facie, perverse, that interference by the Civil Courts becomes necessary.”

The Delhi High Court on 24.01.2018 in the matter of NHAI Vs. M/S. BSC-RBM-PATI JOINT VENTURE also imposed costs to the Appellant as the Appeal in the opinion of the Hon’ble Court was an attempt to re-argue the entire dispute, de novo.


Whether the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal is to be interfered with as the same is a well-reasoned award with observations into the technicalities of the Agreement and work done.


The Hon’ble Court held that “the Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act. Insofar as the ultimate view of the learned arbitrator/ Arbitral Tribunal, on any issue is concerned, so long as the view is plausible, and not merely possible, this Court would be loath to interfere therewith”.

The Division Bench before parting with Judgement, also noted that “every award passed by the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal, especially, where the awards are commercial in nature, are challenged, first before the Single Judge and thereafter before the Division Bench merely because the “aggrieved party” possess the financial wherewithal to do so. It is a matter of concern that the majority of such challenges are by public sector undertakings, the appellant before us being one of the main contributors thereto. Such attempts contribute, in a great deal to the menace of “docket explosion”, which plagues our Courts and consumes valuable time which could be used for settling more important disputes.”