The Supreme Court ruled that to invalidate a contract as unconscionable under Section 74, a party must prove: (1) the other party dominated their will, (2) exploited that dominance to gain unfair advantage, and (3) the resulting bargain is inherently oppressive. Courts will not rescue parties from knowingly entered agreements.

The Supreme Court held that when commercial contracts specify interest rates, arbitral tribunals must strictly enforce these terms and lose discretionary power under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act. The bench clarified that the contra proferentem rule does not apply to bilaterally negotiated clauses.