IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.02/2020 M/s National Tyres, Nagpur through its partners Vs. National Highway Authority of India and others WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 30/2019 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Arbitrator and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders AA No. 2/2020 Mr. Anand Deshpande, Advocate with Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Adv. for Appellant Mr. A.A. Kathane, Adv. for Respondent No.1 Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 AA No. 30/2019 Mr. A.A. Kathane, Adv. for Appellants Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Anand Deshpande, Advocate with Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Adv. for Respondent Nos.3a to 3b CORAM: NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J. DATED : 24^th DECEMBER, 2025

1. Arbitration Appeal No. 2/2020 has been preferred by M/s National Tyres and its partners under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, assailing the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act, arising out of the arbitral award dated 28.03.2016 passed in Arbitration Case No.

1/ARB/2015-16.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Court below has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 34 of the Act. It is contended that instead of confining itself to the limited grounds available under the statute, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has impermissibly interfered with and modified the arbitral award. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and relegate the matter bearing Arbitration Case No. 1/ARB/2015-16 to the learned Arbitrator for fresh consideration.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) initially opposed the appeal by contending that the arbitral award was just, fair and did not call for interference. However, he fairly submits that while deciding the application under Section 34 bearing Civil M.A. No. 742/2016, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has traversed beyond the permissible limits of jurisdiction and has acted contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NHAI v. M. Haim and Others, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 1.

3. Arbitration Appeal No. 30/2019 is preferred by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, also under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the same order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Civil M.A. No. 742/2016. The grievance raised is that the learned Court below, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34, has modified the original arbitral award, which is impermissible in law.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 fairly admits the legal position and submits that once the impugned order is found to be unsustainable, the appropriate course would be to set aside the said order and remit the matter to the learned Arbitrator for fresh consideration.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The scope of interference by a Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extremely limited. The Court does not sit in appeal over an arbitral award, nor can it re-appreciate evidence or correct errors of fact or law unless the grounds expressly enumerated under the statute are made out.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NHAI v. M. Haim and Others (supra) has categorically held that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 has no power to modify an arbitral award. The Court may either set aside the award on the limited grounds available under the statute or refuse to interfere; any modification or reworking of the award is beyond its jurisdiction.

7.