The applicants sought to set aside three arbitral awards under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging procedural unfairness regarding damages quantification and witness exclusion.
The respondents sought to enforce the awards.
The court dismissed the applicants' motion, affirming the narrow scope of judicial review for arbitral awards under s. 46, which focuses on procedural fairness rather than substantive errors.
The court found the arbitrator's reasons adequate and that the applicants were treated fairly, despite their disagreement with the arbitrator's evidentiary and damages assessment decisions.
