India's Supreme Court is poised to deliver a significant ruling that could alter the arbitration landscape as we know it.
In this video, Svadha Shankar, Partner at Hammurabi & Solomon Partners, explores the high-stakes legal debate over whether courts can modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—or are they strictly limited to setting them aside?
This landmark case, heard by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, examines arguments on both sides:
- The government's view that modification was intentionally excluded to limit judicial intervention
- Counterarguments urging flexibility and efficiency through judicial correction of arbitral errors
Key issues include:
- The distinction between setting aside and modifying an award
- Implications for international enforcement
- Potential constitutional concerns under Article 14
With judgment reserved, the outcome of this case could shape the future of arbitration law in India. Will the Court prioritize finality—or open the door to more judicial oversight?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
