Allahabad HC upholds arbitral award, dismisses appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 26 October 2026

Case: State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... vs M/S Apex Construction Co. Mathura Thru. ...
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Jaspreet Singh, J.
Decided: 24 October 2026
Statutes: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34, s.37
Source: Indian Kanoon (Allahabad HC)

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... vs M/S Apex Construction Co. Mathura Thru. ..., the Allahabad High Court (Jaspreet Singh, J.) on 2026-10-24 dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby upholding the Commercial Court's order dated 09.02.2023 which had dismissed a Section 34 petition and affirmed the arbitral award dated 30.07.2017 concerning a road construction contract dispute.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The court upheld the Commercial Court's dismissal of a Section 34 petition, thereby affirming the arbitral award, indicating that the grounds for challenging the award under Section 34 were not met, and consequently, the appeal under Section 37 also failed.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should note the high threshold for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 and appeals under Section 37. Litigants must ensure strong grounds are established for setting aside an award, as courts generally defer to arbitral tribunals.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are limited in scope.
2The Commercial Court's decision to dismiss a Section 34 petition was affirmed.
3The arbitral award concerning a road construction contract dispute remains upheld.

The Legal Issue The State of U.P., through its Additional Chief Secretary, challenged an order passed by Commercial Court No. 1, Lucknow, dated 09.02.2023. This order had dismissed the appellant's petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which sought to set aside an arbitral award dated 30.07.2017. The present appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to overturn the Commercial Court's decision and, by extension, the arbitral award.

Court's Reasoning The dispute originated from a contract for the widening and strengthening of the Raya-Math Road in District Mathura. The initial contract, valued at Rs. 737.85 lakhs for 10 kilometers, was later expanded to 12 kilometers, increasing the contract price to Rs. 1137.29 lakhs. This enhanced price included the cost of bitumen and additional items sanctioned on 23.09.2009. The Commercial Court had found no grounds to interfere with the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment, upheld the Commercial Court's decision, implying that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for setting aside the arbitral award as per the limited scope provided under Section 34, and consequently, the appeal under Section 37 also lacked merit.

What Follows The appeal filed by the State of U.P. under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stands dismissed. As a result, the order of Commercial Court No. 1, Lucknow, dated 09.02.2023, is affirmed, and the arbitral award dated 30.07.2017, in favor of M/S Apex Construction Co. Mathura, remains upheld.