Section 34 vs Section 37 of the Arbitration Act Explained

An arbitral award is not a court decree, and the challenge to an arbitral award in India is governed by limited statutory grounds. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 provides the primary remedy for setting aside an arbitral award, while Section 37 provides a limited appeal against specified orders, including an order setting aside or refusing to set aside the award.

Understanding the difference between Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, their respective stages, grounds and limitations, is essential before deciding whether and how to challenge an arbitral award.

Section 34: The Application to Set Aside

Section 34 provides that recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside the award in accordance with sub-sections (2) and (3).

The word “only” is the design of the Act. There is no appeal against an arbitral award on merits.

The grounds in Section 34(2) are limited. In substance they cover incapacity of a party; an arbitration agreement not valid under the applicable law; want of proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the proceedings, or inability to present the case; an award dealing with a dispute not contemplated by or falling outside the submission to arbitration; a tribunal or procedure not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or with the Act; a subject matter not capable of settlement by arbitration; and conflict with the public policy of India.

Explanation 1 to Section 34(2), inserted by the 2015 amendment, confines public policy to three situations: where the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; where it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or where it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.

Explanation 2 makes clear that the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.

Section 34(2A), also inserted in 2015, provides an additional ground for domestic arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations: that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. The proviso is important — an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.

The court has no power to modify. Section 34 permits the award to be set aside, wholly or in part; it does not authorise the court to substitute its own view or to rewrite the award.

Section 34(3) fixes the time: an application may not be made after three months from the date on which the party received the award or, where a request under Section 33 has been made, from the date on which that request was disposed of. The proviso permits a further thirty days on sufficient cause shown, “but not thereafter“.

Section 34(4) permits the court, on a request by a party, to adjourn proceedings to give the tribunal an opportunity to resume proceedings or take such action as may eliminate the grounds for setting aside.

Section 34(5) and (6), inserted in 2015, require the application to be filed after issuing prior notice to the other party, accompanied by an affidavit endorsing compliance, and provide that the application shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any event within one year from the date on which notice is served.

Section 37: The Appeal

Section 37 provides that an appeal shall lie from the orders it lists — and from no others.

Under Section 37(1), an appeal lies from an order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8; granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9; and setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.

Under Section 37(2), an appeal lies from an order of the arbitral tribunal accepting the plea referred to in Section 16(2) or 16(3), and from an order granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17.

Section 37(3) provides that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under the section — but it expressly saves the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution therefore remains, but it is discretionary and sparingly exercised in arbitration matters.

The Critical Point: Section 37 is Narrower Still

An appeal under Section 37 from an order under Section 34 is not a rehearing of the challenge. The appellate court exercises the same limited jurisdiction the Section 34 court had. It asks whether the court below correctly applied the Section 34 grounds — not whether the award was right.

The consequence is a funnel. The tribunal decides the dispute. The Section 34 court examines the award against a short list of grounds, without reviewing the merits. The Section 37 court examines whether that examination was correctly conducted. At no stage is the correctness of the award, as such, in issue.

A Comparison: Section 34 vs Section 37 of the Arbitration Act

The distinction between Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is important when considering a challenge to an arbitral award or an appeal against an arbitration order. The table below compares their scope, grounds, time limits, court powers and further remedies for setting aside an arbitral award in India.

Practical Guidance

Challenging an arbitral award requires more than identifying an error in the tribunal’s reasoning. The statutory limits under Section 34 and Section 37 make procedure, timing and the precise ground of challenge critical to determining whether a challenge can be maintained.

Do not treat Section 34 as an appeal. An application that re-argues the evidence is unlikely to succeed, and the proviso to Section 34(2A) addresses the point expressly.

Identify the ground precisely. Which limb of Section 34(2), or Section 34(2A), is engaged, and on what material.

Watch the outer limit. Three months plus thirty days is absolute — “but not thereafter” has been applied literally.

Comply with Sections 34(5) and (6), including prior notice and the endorsing affidavit.

Before filing a Section 37 appeal, ask what the appellate court can actually do. Where the Section 34 court applied the correct test and reached a tenable conclusion, an appeal adds delay without prospects — and, because the award is enforceable unless stayed, delay is not neutral.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Section 34 provides the limited grounds and procedure for challenging an arbitral award before a court.

2. What is Section 37 of the Arbitration Act?
Section 37 provides appeals from specified orders, including an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.

3. Can a court modify an arbitral award under Section 34?
Generally, no. Section 34 provides for setting aside the award, not rewriting or substituting it.

4. What is the time limit for filing a Section 34 application?
It must generally be filed within three months, with a further thirty days possible on sufficient cause, but not thereafter.

5. Is Section 37 an appeal on the merits of the award?
No. A Section 37 appeal concerning a Section 34 order remains confined to the limited scope of judicial review under Section 34.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications or judicial developments. The application of the 2015, 2019 and 2021 amendments depends on when the arbitral proceedings and the related court proceedings commenced, and should be checked for a particular case. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Readers dealing with an actual matter should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here. Statutory provisions, notified figures, rules and case citations referred to in this article have been compiled from published legal materials and may contain errors or omissions, and may have changed since the date stated; no representation or warranty, express or implied, is given as to their accuracy, completeness or currency, and each should be independently verified against the official text or the official record before being relied upon. No liability is accepted for any loss arising from reliance on this article.

Sources / Authorities

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e), 8, 9, 16, 17, 33, 34 (including sub-sections (2), (2A), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and Explanations 1 and 2), 36 and 37 — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 — insertion of Section 34(2A) and the Explanations to Section 34(2)
• Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021
• Limitation Act, 1963
• Constitution of India, Article 136