91. Numerous precedents laid down by this Court have often emphasised that an arbitrator lacks the power to deviate from or to reinterpret the terms of the contract while making an award. The awards must be within the parameters of the agreement entered between the parties.

98. A perusal therefore crystalises that it is the interpretation of an arbitral award which determines whether a contract or a specific provision thereof is considered part of the award or not. If a clear reliance is placed by the arbitrator on the contract, a presumption arises in favour of the incorporation, while a vague or general reference opposes such a presumption.

103. A perusal of the contractual provisions clearly highlights that the Division Bench was correct to observe that owing to the well-recorded failure of the Unit Characteristics Test for Unit 1, the Arbitral Tribunal, through any possible means could not have, went on to hold that the Performance Guarantee Test was successful. The verboten attempt to do so, through rewriting of the milestone conditions was rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court through the observations in the Impugned Judgment.

113. The scope under Section 37, as rightly argued by SEPCO, is slimmer than that under Section 34, but, in the instant case, the Section 34 Judgment had failed to appreciate the gross violations of the basic principles of adjudication of a dispute. While one may argue some of those may be latent and not a prima facie violation, thereby not mandating any interference, direct omission of the mandate of Section 18 and Section 28 Sub-Section 3 of the 1996 Act are clearly patent through a skimming of Arbitral Award.