As per case facts, the petitioner (Volleyball Federation) and respondent (sports marketing company) had an agreement for a pro-volleyball league. Disputes arose when the respondent reported a loss for the ... first season, which the petitioner believed was manipulated to deny their profit share. Further issues included the respondent's attempt to trademark the league's name/logo and non-conduct of certain leagues. The petitioner terminated the agreement, leading to arbitration. The Arbitrator found the termination unjustified and awarded the respondent loss of profit, while also addressing intellectual property rights. The petitioner appealed this award to the High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question arose whether the Arbitrator's findings on the termination's validity, alleged manipulation of accounts, non-conduct of leagues, delay in payments, and assessment of loss of profit were perverse or suffered from patent illegality. Finally, the High Court carefully reviewed the Arbitrator's findings on all disputed issues. The court concluded that the Arbitrator's views were reasonable, supported by evidence, and constituted plausible interpretations of the agreement and facts. Therefore, the High Court found no perversity or patent illegality in the award, affirming that it did not require interference. The petition was dismissed with costs.