SC commences hearing on question if courts can modify arbitral awards
New Delhi (PTI): A five-judge Supreme Court bench on Thursday commenced hearing on a key legal issue of whether courts can modify arbitral awards under the provisions of a 1996 law on arbitration and conciliation.
A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan and Augustine George Masih is presently hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Centre.
Arbitration is an alternate mode of dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and it minimises the role of courts to interfere with the awards by the tribunals.
Section 34 of the Act provides for the setting aside of an arbitral award on limited grounds such as procedural irregularities, violation of public policy, or lack of jurisdiction.
Section 37 governs appeals against orders related to arbitration, including those refusing to set aside an award.
Like Section 34, it also aims to minimise judicial interference while addressing exceptional cases requiring oversight.
A three-judge bench headed by the CJI, on January 23, had referred the contentious issue to a larger bench.
“This court will first hear arguments of the counsel seeking reconsideration of the ratio expressed in the Project Director, NHAI vs M Hakeem, that is, the court has the power to modify an award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Thereafter, this court will hear the counsel who supports the view that the court does not have the power to modify an award under Sections 34 and 37 … While examining the aforesaid question, the court will also examine the contours and scope of the power of the court … and if the power of modification exists, to what extent the same can be exercised,” the bench ordered.
The bench emphasised the need for clarity on the contentious issue. The matter arose from a case titled as Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.
The courts have traditionally interpreted this section narrowly, avoiding a review of the merits of the award to uphold arbitration’s principles of finality and efficiency.
While referring to the case, the bench had acknowledged the complexity of the issue after taking note of the submissions of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, assisted by law firm M/s Karanjawala & Co, on behalf of the respondents.
In February 2024, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta, KV Viswanathan, and Sandeep Mehta had framed a few questions and referred the case to the CJI for consideration.
“Does the power to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 include the authority to modify it,” one of the questions read.
If modification is permitted, what is its extent and under what circumstances, read the second question.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
IPL final shifted for bigger stadium, not ticket issue: Shivakumar
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Wednesday rubbished allegations that the IPL final venue was shifted from Bengaluru to Ahmedabad due to the distribution of tickets to MLAs.
Speaking to reporters, Shivakumar said the reason for the shift could be the availability of a larger stadium in Ahmedabad.
“Ahmedabad has a large stadium and can accommodate more spectators. That must be the reason the IPL final was shifted there. There is no connection between ticket distribution to MLAs and the venue change,” he said.
When asked about reports linking the venue shift to MLAs demanding tickets, he quipped, “In some places, 50 per cent of tickets are reserved.”
When reporters said the BCCI had indicated that the decision was linked to ticket issues, he responded, “Let them make such statements. I will respond appropriately.”
Bengaluru was originally expected to host the final as the Royal Challengers Bengaluru were the defending champions.
Ahmedabad will host the IPL final for a second successive season on May 31, the BCCI announced earlier in the day, while allotting Qualifier 1 to Dharamsala and two other playoff games to New Chandigarh.
The board, however, said the final venue was shifted “owing to certain requirements from the local association and authorities that were beyond the scope of BCCI’s established guidelines and protocols.”
Shivakumar declined to comment on the revocation of the suspension of Muslim leaders in Davanagere, saying it was a party decision.
Regarding the removal of MLC Naseer Ahmed as CM Siddaramaiah’s political secretary, he said the chief minister had already spoken on the matter.
“The CM has his own information. Party office-bearers have provided guidance. He was given certain responsibilities, which he did not handle properly, which is why he was removed,” Shivakumar said.
On MLC Abdul Jabbar, who resigned as the state Congress minority cell chief and was later expelled from the party, he said Jabbar had submitted his resignation, which the party accepted.
The Congress in Karnataka faced internal dissent in April when several Muslim leaders objected to the party fielding Samarth Shamanur as its candidate for the recently held Davanagere South Assembly bypoll.
They demanded that a Muslim candidate be fielded, citing the constituency’s substantial Muslim population. The party subsequently took disciplinary action against three leaders, including Jabbar and MLC Ahmed.
When asked about his and the CM’s visit to Delhi, he said, “We will go when the high command calls us. It is not appropriate to go without being called.”
On Congress supporting TVK in Tamil Nadu, Shivakumar said the decision was taken to keep the "BJP out of power and strengthen secular forces." Elections to the 234 Assembly constituencies were held on April 23, and the results were announced on May 4.
The Congress party, a long-time ally of the DMK, announced its support for TVK to form a government in Tamil Nadu and severed ties with the Dravidian major.
The incumbent DMK was trounced by the fledgling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, led by Vijay, who secured 108 seats. “Despite pressure from the AIADMK and BJP, TVK did not align with them. Our party has taken this decision in the interest of secular forces and the welfare of Tamil Nadu,” Shivakumar said.
