SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Printed For: Satyam Raj Kaushik, Chanakya National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1681
In the Supreme Court of India
(BEFORE DIPANKAR DATTA, K.V. VISWANATHAN AND SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.)
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15336-15337/2021
Gayatri Balasamy … Petitioner(s);
Versus
ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited … Respondent
(s).
(For Admission, For Reporting Compliance and I.A. No.
42914/2024 for direction]
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15336-15337/2021;
OSA No. 59/2015; OSA No. 181/2015; and I.A. No. 42914/2024†
Decided on February 20, 2024
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M.V Mukunda, Adv.
Ms. Hina Shaheen, Adv.
Mr. Mithun Shashank, Adv.
Mr. M.V Swaroop, Adv.
Mr. Hredai Sriram, Adv.
Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR
Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gurtej Pal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Rana, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv.
M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
ORDER
1. I.A. No. 42914/2024 for direction stands dismissed. Time to
comply with the order dated 19.10.2023 is extended by three weeks
from date.
2. Whether or not the Courts in exercise of power under sections 34
or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are empowered to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Printed For: Satyam Raj Kaushik, Chanakya National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
modify an arbitral award is a question which frequently arises in
proceedings not only before this Court but also before the High Courts
and the District Courts. While one line of decisions of this Court has
answered the aforesaid question in the negative, there are decisions
which have either modified the awards of the arbitral tribunals or
upheld orders under challenge modifying the awards. It is, therefore, of
seminal importance that through an authoritative pronouncement
clarity is provided for the guidance of the Courts which are required to
exercise jurisdiction under the aforesaid sections 34 and 37, as the case
may be, day in and day out.
3. We are of the considered view that the following questions need
to be referred to a larger Bench for answers:
“1. Whether the powers of the Court under section 34 and 37 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, will include the power to
modify an arbitral award?
2. If the power to modify the award is available, whether such
power can be exercised only where the award is severable and a part
thereof can be modified?
3. Whether the power to set aside an award under section 34 of
the Act, being a larger power, will include the power to modify an
arbitral award and if so, to what extent?
4. Whether the power to modify an award can be read into the
power to set aside an award under section 34 of the Act?
5. Whether the judgment of this Court in Project Director NHAI v.
M. Hakeem1, followed in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
2
Company v. Union of India and SV Samudram v. State of
3
Karnataka lay down the correct law, as other benches of two Judges
(in Vedanta Limited v. Shenzden Shandong Nuclear Power
4
Construction Company Limited , Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Kerala5 and M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. v.
6
Ansaldo Energia Spa ) and three Judges (in J.C. Budhraja v.
7
Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. , Tata Hydroelectric Power
8
Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Shakti Nath v. Alpha Tiger
9
Cyprus Investment No. 3 Ltd. ) of this Court have either modified or
accepted modification of the arbitral awards under consideration?”
4. The special leave petitions may be placed before the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of India for an appropriate order.
———
†
Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-08-2019 in OSA No. 59/2015 08-
08-2019 in OSA No. 181/2015 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Printed For: Satyam Raj Kaushik, Chanakya National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
(2021) 9 SCC 1
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 982
3
2024 SCC OnLine SC 19
4
(2019) 11 SCC 465
5
(2021) 6 SCC 150
6
(2018) 16 SCC 661
7
(2008) 2 SCC 444
8
(2003) 4 SCC 172
9
(2020) 11 SCC 685
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
