As per the case facts, two appeals stemmed from a High Court judgment that partially allowed an arbitration appeal. The case involved the premature termination of an Implementation Agreement by ... the State of Himachal Pradesh, with the High Court having intervened in the arbitral award. The question arose whether the High Court overstepped its authority under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by interfering with the arbitral award, particularly concerning its interpretation of the Implementation Agreement. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's decision, which had reinstated the arbitral award. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction by questioning the logical reasoning of the arbitral award regarding the Implementation Agreement's clauses. The State's termination of the agreement was deemed impermissible, as it was based on a flawed interpretation and occurred before the agreed-upon period.