Limited scope of judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act

strictly circumscribes the jurisdiction of courts reviewing arbitral awards, precluding merits-based evaluations or the substitution of plausible findings. A court exercising supervisory powers under Section 34, or appellate jurisdiction under Section 37, does not sit as a regular court of appeal and cannot reassess evidentiary weight or correct perceived errors of fact. Construction and interpretation of the terms of a commercial contract fall squarely within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. An arbitral award may only be modified or set aside under very narrow exceptions, such as patent illegality striking at the root of the matter, severe breaches of natural justice, or patent perversity where no fair-minded or reasonable person could have reached the conclusion. Where an arbitral tribunal adopts a plausible and reasonable interpretation among competing views, judicial interference is strictly prohibited, maintaining party autonomy and finality in commercial dispute resolution. (Prakash Atlanta (JV) Vs National Highways Authority of India | 2026 INSC 76).