As per case facts, a slum redevelopment project led to a dispute between the developer (appellant) and a contractor (respondent) regarding construction activities and FSI sharing. An Arbitral Tribunal issued ... an award, which the Single Judge later set aside, citing various grounds including perversity and patent illegality. The Division Bench, in a Section 37 appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an Appellate Court, under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, has the power to remand a petition under Section 34 for a fresh hearing, especially when the Single Judge had already rendered a detailed judgment on the merits of the arbitral award. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the remand order by the Division Bench was unwarranted given the Single Judge's elaborate consideration of issues. It clarified that while the power of remand exists in exceptional circumstances, routinely resorting to it would undermine the Arbitration Act's objectives of efficiency and minimal court intervention in arbitral processes. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and directed it to decide the appeal on merits.