Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, may a court under Section 34, or an appellate court under Section 37, modify an arbitral award instead of setting it aside?

No. The limited remedy under Section 34 is coterminous with the limited right — either to set aside the award or to remand the matter under the circumstances mentioned in Section 34 — and carries no power to modify, revise or vary it. The powers of the appellate court under Section 37 are not broader, so what cannot be done under Section 34 cannot be done in an appeal under Section 37.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss.34 and 37 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss.16(3) and 73 — Award cannot be modified — Scope of interference — Conditions precedent — Economic duress — Damages — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss.34 and 37 — No power to modify an award — Held: A court under Section 34 may only set aside an arbitral award, not modify or vary it. Section 37 powers are no broader, so what cannot be done under Section 34 cannot be done on appeal. (¶40, 56) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Conditions precedent — Possible view not interferable — Held further: A Tribunal's conclusion that unfulfilled conditions precedent left a supplementary agreement a non-starter is a finding of fact and a possible finding. Such a finding cannot be interfered with under Section 34. (¶46, 49) Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s.73 — Damages assessed without proof of loss — Held further: Damages fixed from the opposite party's own counter-claim figures, with no evidence of the loss actually incurred, are fundamentally contrary to Section 73. Being contrary to substantive law, that part of the award was rightly set aside. (¶52) Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s.16(3) — Economic duress — Burden on the dominant party — Held further: Where a party in a position to dominate the will of another obtains an unconscionable transaction, the burden of proving absence of undue influence lies on it; a coercion finding so reached discloses no patent illegality. Appeals dismissed. (¶48, 59)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India