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.
  • Samho Gunyoung Co. Ltd vs. Flakt (India) Ltd.; MANU/ DE/1062/2009[Full Text]
  • Numaligarh Refinery Limited vs. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd.; 2007 (8) SCC 466
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