Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.Nos.200 of 2011 and 774 of 2012

18. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (11) SCC 181, McDermott International INC Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd, the Supreme Court while discussing the grounds for setting aside the Award observed that the 1996 Act cast a Supervisory role for the Court for reviewing the Arbitral Award only to test its fairness. The Court was not vested with the power to correct errors of the Arbitrators and could only quash the Award leaving the parties free to begin the Arbitration once again. The reasons for the Hon'ble Supreme Court arriving at this conclusion has been stated by them as follows:

20.The following Judgements also resulted in modifying the award. Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd and others Vs. Union of India – (2003) 4 SCC 172 and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.Nos.200 of 2011 and 774 of 2012 Vs. Friends Coal Carbonisation – (2006) 4 SCC 445. In the above Judgements modification to the award of the Arbitrator was with reference to the quantum of interest. In the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.Harischandra Reddy and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 720, which Judgement was also relied upon in case of McDermott. Once again modification was with reference to the interest. In the case of Hindustan Zinc as well as the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd the modification was with consent of parties as well.

d) McDermott International INC. Vs. Burn Standard Co Ltd - 2006 (11) SCC 181.

28. He had also drawn parallels from the English Arbitration Act, 1996, Commercial Arbitration in Australia, Canada, United States of America and Singapore. Ultimately the learned Judge held as follows:

“51.The expression “recourse to a Court against an arbitral award” is a comprehensive and inclusive expression. Merely because such recourse is to be made in the form of an application to set aside the award, it cannot be construed that the power of the Court is limited by Section 34(1), only to set aside the award and to leave the parties in a position much worse than what they contemplated or deserved before the commencement of the arbitral proceeding. A statute cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to make the remedy worse than the disease. A narrow interpretation of Section 34(1) would actually spell doom for the arbitration regime and actually create a mischief. http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.Nos.200 of 2011 and 774 of 2012
“We wish to observe that the Court, in exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall vary or modify the amount awarded without disturbing the factual finding and such course is legally permissible under Section 34 of the said Act.”
29. The view taken by the Supreme Court in ''McDermott International INC. Vs. Burn Standard Co Ltd'' reported in [2006 (11) SCC 181] has been relied upon by the Delhi High Court in the Judgment reported in [2015 SCC Online Del 13394] in the case of ''Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Indian Council of http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.Nos.200 of 2011 and 774 of 2012 Arbitration & another'' The learned Judge has stated as follows: