Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified In Setting-Aside Proceedings? – A Brief On Supreme Court's Re-Interpretation Of Section 34 Of Arbitration Act

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act'), governs the setting-aside of awards arising from arbitrations seated in India. This provision does not provide any powers for the setting-aside court to vary or modify portions of the award. This was the legal position in vogue under Indian law, until the Hon'ble Supreme Court's reinterpretation of Section 34, by its judgment...

Evaluation Of Alternative Propositions By Arbitrator For Interim Award Does Not Constitute Inherent Contradiction Or Perversity: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has held that considering alternative propositions by the Arbitrator and proceeding on the premise that the award holder would be entitled to an interim award under either scenario does not amount to an inherent contradiction. Evaluating alternatives is a legitimate judicial exercise and does not tantamount...

Absence Of Express Liberty In Withdrawal Order To File Fresh Execution Petition Does Not Deny Benefit U/S 14 Of Limitation Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has held that withdrawal of an execution petition for enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when such ground is clearly stated in the withdrawal application, does not bar the petitioner from refiling before the appropriate forum, even if the court's order does not expressly grant liberty to...

Arbitrator Can Fix Fee In Consultation With Parties Without Recourse To A&C Act; Quantum Can't Be Challenged Under Article 227: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bihas Ranjan De. has observed that an arbitrator can indeed fix his remuneration, and this can be done in a manner that may not comply with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that such a decision is made in consultation with the parties involved. When parties contractually agree on a fee, the Fourth...

If Courts Can Only Set Aside Awards & Can't Modify Them, Parties Will Be Forced To Undergo Fresh Round Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that in order to ensure efficient dispute resolution and uphold the objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Court should be allowed to modify awards when parties challenge the tribunal's decision. The decision was rendered by a Constitutional Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna comprising Justices BR Gavai,Sanjay Kumar, AG Masih and KV...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: April 2025

Supreme Court Sec 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY VERSUS M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO) Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 391 A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the three-month limitation period under Section...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: May 2025

Supreme Court When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains Case Details : GAYATRI BALASAMY Versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508 The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the...

Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make Changes

The Supreme Court today (May 2) expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties. The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul...

When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the Tribunal under S. 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be seen as a straight-jacket formula. The Court observed that an award should be remitted back only if there is a possibility to correct a defect in the award, but if the entire award suffers...

Separate Notice For Counter Claims U/S 21 Of A&C Act Not Required When Arbitration Proceedings Are Pending Between Parties: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed that where the disputes between the parties are already the subject matter of an earlier arbitral reference, a separate notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) would not be necessary for separate proceedings to adjudicate counter claims. Facts The present petition under...

Compensation Can Be Granted When Aggrieved Party Continues Service Due To Suppression Of Fact Of Contract's Termination: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that loss of profit incurred by a party due to the other party's suppression of material facts regarding the termination of the contract, where the former continued to render services under a mistaken belief, can be reasonably compensated by applying the Hudson formula. Brief...

Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court By 4:1

Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral...