SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1568

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Krishnan Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. V. Lokesh Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.J. Rishikesh along with Ms. Pravartha J.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

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 :

    'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top