If there are two possible views on interpretation of contract and the Arbitrator takes a possible view, his award cannot be interfered with by this Court in its jurisdiction u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Durga Prasad Chamria vs. Sewkishendas Bhatter;AIR 1949 PC 334
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs. Dewan Chand Ram Saran;(2012) 5 SCC 306
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Dolphin Drilling Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 952 of 2013, Bombay High Court, March 26, 2014
Once there is no dispute as to the contract, what is the interpretation of that contract is a matter for the Arbitrator and the Court cannot substitute its decision thereupon.
Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. The Government of Kerala; AIR 1989 SC 890
Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to quality, quantity and appreciation of evidence, import of documents and interpretation of contract.
The interpretation of a contract may fall within the realm of the Arbitrator and the Court will not interfere unless the reasons adduced by the Arbitrator are found to be perverse or based on wrong proposition of law.
G. Ramachandra Reddy vs. Union of India, 2009 (6) SCC 414
Union of India vs. Best Cast Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. 2010 (2) MWN Civil 349
National Highways Authority of India vs. Som Datt Builders 2010 (4) R.A.J. 352
Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust vs. Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited, Mumbai and others; 2014 (2) MLJ 132, Madras High Court, January 8, 2014
Ropa Plastics Private Limited, Pune vs. IPN Packaging Private Limited, Pune; Arbitration Petition No. 557 of 2012, Bombay High Court, July 1, 2014
