Analysing The Scope Of Modification Of Arbitral Awards Through Judicial Intervention

One of the core principles of arbitration is minimal Court intervention, allowing for efficient dispute resolution. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) reinforces this by empowering the parties' chosen arbitrator to decide all aspects of the dispute, leaving only limited grounds under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act for Courts to set aside an arbitral award. Despite this narrow scope, Courts have, through various decisions, incrementally carved out a power to modify arbitral awards – a controversial development involving divergent judicial views on its conflict with party autonomy and the principle of non-interference. In a recent decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd,¹ the Supreme Court had the occasion to settle this long-standing issue.