(i) Even though Arbitral Tribunal may have committed mere error of fact or law in reaching its conclusion on the disputed questions of law submitted to it for adjudication, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the award.
(ii) The Court while dealing with application under section 34 of the Act, cannot act as an appellate Court and substitute its own findings and cannot correct error of law or fact.
(iii) If two views are possible then, the view taken by the Arbitrator shall prevail and the court would not interfere with the Award passed.
(iv) The Arbitrator cannot re-write the contract in the guise of interpretation.
(v) If an Award on the face of it, is passed in violation of statutory provisions, it cannot be said to be in public interest, as the same is likely to affect administration of justice. Thus an award can be set aside if it is contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law, the interest of India, Justice or Morality or if it is patently illegal and such illegality goes to the root of the matter.
(vi) The Award can be interfered with even if it is contrary to terms of the contract, as the same would be patently illegal and opposed to public policy of India.
(vii) The expression ‘Fundamental Policy of Indian Law’ would inter alia include that every determination by Court or Authority which affects the right of citizen must adopt judicial approach, and should record reasons in support of its decision and perversity and irrationality of decision would be tested on the touch stone of Wednesbury Principle.
(viii) In the absence of agreement to the contrary between the parties section 31(7)(a) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the arbitral tribunal to award interest unless otherwise agreed by the parties, at such rate as the arbitral tribunal considers necessary.