#Finality of Awards

The Supreme Court upholds an arbitral award for termination payment under a BOT concession agreement, ruling that contractual obligations can be enforced based on implied intent and performance, even if not expressly pleaded. This reinforces party autonomy and narrows judicial review under Section 34, setting a critical precedent for infrastructure arbitrations across public-private partnerships.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that executing courts lack authority to alter the interest period or amount specified in a final arbitral award, even if the debtor claims a bona fide dispute. This upholds the sanctity of arbitral awards under Section 36 ACA and prevents collateral challenges during enforcement, directly impacting award holders seeking precise recovery and debtors attempting to renegotiate terms post-award.

Delhi High Court dismisses appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that courts cannot re-examine evidence or contractual interpretations while reviewing arbitral awards. The ruling underscores that only patent illegality or jurisdictional errors justify setting aside awards, protecting finality in commercial disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that an arbitration award remains valid if the arbitrator was appointed before a subsequent jurisdictional ruling (L.G. Chaudhary). The decision protects finality of awards where procedural fairness was observed at the time of appointment, preventing retroactive invalidation.