The Supreme Court held that arbitral awards must strictly adhere to the contractual terms agreed by parties. SEPCO’s appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by rewriting contract clauses, ignoring the “No Oral Modification” clause, and discriminating between parties in violation of Section 18 of the Arbitration Act. Awarding damages despite failed Unit Characteristics Test violated Section 28(3). Courts emphasized that arbitrators are bound by the contract and cannot modify terms. Judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 is limited but justified when awards violate natural justice, public policy, or fundamental contractual provisions.The Supreme Court held that arbitral awards must strictly adhere to the contractual terms agreed by parties. SEPCO’s appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by rewriting contract clauses, ignoring the “No Oral Modification” clause, and discriminating between parties in violation of Section 18 of the Arbitration Act. Awarding damages despite failed Unit Characteristics Test violated Section 28(3). Courts emphasized that arbitrators are bound by the contract and cannot modify terms. Judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 is limited but justified when awards violate natural justice, public policy, or fundamental contractual provisions.