The court reaffirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the principle that modifications could only be exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution in exceptional cases.

ORDER

Manish Pitale, J. - This is a bunch of thirteen appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), challenging orders passed by the District Court disposing of applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. While Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL) has filed ten appeals, Shoft Shipyard Private Limited (SHOFT) has filed three appeals. Amongst the ten appeals filed on behalf of GSL, two suffer from delay and hence they are accompanied by applications for condonation of delay.

2. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, various issues arise for consideration. It would be appropriate to first refer to the chronology of events in brief, in order to appreciate the background in which the rival submissions have been advanced.

3. SHOFT is the original claimant in the proceedings initiated under the Arbitration Act. GSL had floated a tender on 05.09.2007 for awarding contracts concerning construction of hull and for installation of machinery. The claimant SHOFT was the successful bidder and workorders were issued in its favour. Subsequently, certain additional works were added, which were also carried out by SHOFT. There were arbitration clauses in the contracts executed between the parties. Since disputes arose between them, SHOFT called upon GSL to refer the disputes to arbitration. The arbitration clauses required the disputes to be referred to the Chairman and Managing Director of GSL, but SHOFT objected to the same. In this situation, in the context of some of the work-orders / contracts, GSL appointed a former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator and in respect of other work-orders / contracts, proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act had to be instituted. This led to appointment of another former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. As a consequence, arbitral awards were rendered by the two former Judges of this Court. Three awards were rendered by the sole arbitrator, Justice A. P. Lavande, former Judge of this Court on 29.09.2017 and two awards were rendered by Justice F. I. Rebello, former Judge of this Court on 17.04.2018.

4. Both GSL and SHOFT filed applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to challenge the said awards. By the impugned orders, the District Court disposed of the applications, leading to filing of the present appeals. As noted hereinabove, two appeals filed by GSL suffer from delay of 1040 days. The original claimant i.e. SHOFT, in the said appeals, has vehemently opposed the applications for condonation of delay and hence, this Court is called upon to decide the aforesaid issue, in addition to the issues arising on merits in the context of the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties.

5. Mr. Soli Cooper, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant GSL in the ten appeals filed on behalf of GSL submitted that the major issues arising on merits in the present appeals pertain to limitation; the entitlement of GSL for adjustment or set-off while determining the quantum payable to SHOFT, if any; interest payable on the awarded amount; absence of p