#Judicial Interference

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.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that judicial magistrates lack authority to set deadlines for police investigations or charge-sheet submissions under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The judgment reaffirms investigative autonomy, holding that mechanical timelines violate statutory discretion vested in police officers.

Calcutta High Court reinforces the limited scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that an arbitral award need not be exhaustive in reasoning if it shows a plausible application of mind to evidence and contractual terms. The ruling underscores that courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the arbitrator, provided the award is not perverse or patently illegal.

Delhi High Court upholds arbitral award, clarifying that Section 34 challenges cannot substitute court's interpretation for arbitrator's reasoned findings on contract and evidence.