- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations and Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction and Technology topic(s)
The Supreme Court in the matter titled as Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Bharat Aluminum Company Limited1, through its judgement dated 18.12.2025 affirmed that, courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards. Further, the Court held that adjudication over arbitral awards by courts exceed the narrow confines of their appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the A&C Act when it involves re-appreciating facts, reassessing evidence, and substituting its own interpretation in place of an arbitral award which lies outside the contours of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act.
The Supreme Court affirmed that patent illegality does not encompass erroneous application of law, factual errors, or an alternative view of the evidence adopted by the arbitral tribunal. Further, it was held that the High Court re appreciated the evidence and came to a different view than the arbitral tribunal, which was impermissible. The Court also reaffirmed the legislative mandate of minimal judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act.
Footnotes
1 Civil Appeal No of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14529 of 2023).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
