As per case facts, a Collaboration Agreement for property development between the owner (Appellant) and developer (Respondent) encountered disputes when the owner allegedly failed to sanction building plans on time ... and later terminated the agreement. The developer sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages. The Arbitral Tribunal declined specific performance but awarded damages, ruling the termination illegal. The Single Judge upheld this award. The Appellant then appealed to this Court, challenging the findings on readiness and willingness, the validity of termination, and the damages awarded. The question arose whether the Arbitral Award, as upheld by the Single Judge, fell within the permissible grounds for interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. Finally, th high court, adhering to its limited jurisdiction, found the Arbitral Tribunal's and Single Judge's conclusions to be reasoned and plausible, discerning no perversity or patent illegality. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.