IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
Airports Authority of India, Represented by its Asst. General Manager - Appellant
Versus
M/s.URC Construction (P) Ltd. - Respondent
O.S.A. Nos. 195 & 196 of 2021 and C.M.P. Nos. 8271 & 8291 of 2021
Decided On : 15-07-2024
Modification - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 37 - The court emphasized that a Section 34 court cannot modify an arbitral award, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hakeem, which overruled previous interpretations allowing such modifications.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved disputes arising from two contracts between two corporations for the supply of laptops, leading to arbitration and subsequent challenges to the arbitral award in a Section 34 court, which modified the award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the modification of an arbitral award by a Section 34 court is impermissible as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Hakeem, necessitating a remand for a de novo review without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Issues: The primary issue was whether a Section 34 court has the power to modify an arbitral award, which had been previously allowed under different interpretations of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the modification of an arbitral award is not within the powers of a Section 34 court, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Hakeem, which overruled earlier case law permitting such modifications.
Result: The impugned order was set aside and remanded to the Section 34 court for a de novo review.
JUDGMENT :
M. Sundar, J.
This common order will now dispose of the captioned three intra-Court Appeals i.e., 'Original Side Appeals' {'OSAs' for the sake of brevity} and two 'Civil Miscellaneous Petitions' {hereinafter 'CMPs' for the sake of brevity} thereat.
2. Captioned OSAs have been filed in this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {hereinafter 'CAD' for the sake of brevity} assailing a 'common order dated 23.01.2020 made in O.P.Nos.1068 of 2018 and 108 of 2019' {hereinafter 'impugned common order' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity} on the file of Commercial Division of this Court.
3. When the captioned matter was taken up, Mr. M.S. Krishnan learned Senior Counsel for 'Airports Authority of India' {'AAI' for the sake of brevity} and Mr. P.J. Rishikesh, learned counsel along with Ms. Pravartha J. are before us.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for AAI and learned counsel for respondent very fairly submitted that the central theme in the captioned matters is modification of an award by a Section 34 Court i.e., principle that a Section 34 Court shall not modify an award is the obtaining position today vide Hakeem case [Project Director NHAI Vs. M. Hakeem reported in (2021) 9 SCC 1]. This Court is conscious that the question as to whether the power of modification can be read into Sections 34 and 37 of 'the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' {hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity} is a question which has been referred to a Larger Bench by a three member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. To be noted, on this aspect, learned counsel on both sides fairly submitted that captioned matters are directly and squarely covered by another order dated 24.06.2024 made by this Bench in O.S.A.Nos.118 of 2020 & 218 of 2021 and CMPs thereat [ICMC Case]. To add specificity, we clarify that we make it clear that only this aspect is covered and not facts as the facts in ICMC case and case on hand are completely different.
5. In the light of the aforementioned common submission, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce our entire order dated 24.06.2024 in ICMC case and the same reads as follows :
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
M/s.ICMC Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s.Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. - Respondent
O.S.A.No.118 of 2020 and O.S.A.No.218 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.8978 of 2021
Decided On : 24-06-2024
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. J. James, Mr. M. Vijayan assisted by Ms. Bensi Rema for M/s.King and Partridge.
For the Respondent : Mr. M. Vijayan assisted by Ms. Bensi Rema for M/s.King and Partridge, Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. J. James.
JUDGMENT :
[PRAYER : Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.01.2020 passed in O.P. No.821 of 2019 insofar as it interferes with Arbitral Award dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Arbitrator, and consequentially restore the Arbitral Award in its entirety by allowing the O.S.A along with costs including complete reimbursement of the cost of extension of Bank Guarantee till 23/01/2020 with interest @ 15% and pass any other orders deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of this case.
PRAYER : Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, praying to modify the order passed in O.P. No.821 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020 and set aside the award and allow the original petition as prayed for.]
This common consent judgment/order will now dispose of the captioned intra-court Appeals i.e., 'Original Side Appeals' [hereinafter 'OSAs' for the sake of brevity] and captioned 'Civil Miscellaneous Petition' [hereinafter 'CMP' for the sake of
A Section 34 court cannot modify an arbitral award, as established by the Supreme Court in Hakeem, which overruled previous case law allowing such modifications.
(1) Appeal against modified arbitral award – Merits of award are only to be gone into, if award is demonstrated to be contrary to public policy of India.(2) Arbitral proceedings are per se not compar....
The court affirmed that under Section 34, a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to reappraise evidence in arbitral awards and may only modify awards for clear errors, not on merits.
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot modify an arbitral award through reappraisal of evidence or merits; it is restricted to grounds explicitly stated in the....
The Court can partially set aside an arbitral Award and has limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court cannot modify an Award but can set ....
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
Challenge to Arbitral Award – Under guise of additional reasons and filling up gaps in reasoning, no award can be remitted to Arbitrator, where there are no findings on contentious issues in award – ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.