Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

ss.5 and 34(2) and (3) — Arbitral award — Judicial intervention with — Scope of — Award of arbitrator — In favour of the appellant-contractor — Upheld by Single Judge of High Court — Division Bench of High Court in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.34 setting aside the order of Single Judge negating four of the claims of the contractor in toto and scaling down three of the claims — On appeal, held: An arbitration award can be set aside only on the grounds mentioned u/ s.34(2) and (3) — None of the grounds contained in sub- clause 2(a) of the Act deal with the merits of the decision rendered by the arbitral award — It is only when the award is in conflict with the public policy of India that the merits of an arbitral award are to be looked into under specified circumstances — The Division Bench of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s.34 has exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the possible view of arbitrator on the facts —Arbitral award is upheld,

‘Public policy’'- Meaning of, in the context of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Discussed.

Words and Phrases — ‘Justice’ and ‘morality’ Meaning of.