1. Scope of interference with an arbitral award is permissible on grounds limited to those, which are found in section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act). Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act permits challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that it is in conflict with the public policy of India. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2003) 5 SCC 705 : ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. interpreted ‘public policy of India’ appearing in section 34 (2)(b)(ii) and held that an award could be set aside if it is contrary to : (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal. Whenever an arbitral award is challenged under section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act as in the petitions under consideration, the Court while examining as to whether such award falls foul of the public policy of India ought not to embark on a review thereof with microscopic eyes. The parties to the dispute having agreed to resolution thereof by arbitration to the exclusion of judicial process, the decision of the arbitrator ordinarily ought to be accepted and honoured by them. If proceedings are conduc