Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

46. It is also relevant to note that the Court cannot modify or rewrite the Award, and can only set it aside, post which the parties can re-initiate arbitration proceedings, if they so choose. However, partial setting aside is valid and justified, if the part proposed to be annulled is independent and can be removed without affecting the rest of the award. For this, reliance is placed upon McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181; S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka (2024) 3 SCC 623 and National Highways Authority of India v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5183."

25.The scope of judicial scrutiny and interference by an appellate court under Section 37 of the Act is even more restricted, than while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.13 held as under:

1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 (2003) 5 SCC 705 (2006) 4 SCC 445 (2015) 3 SCC 49 (2006) 11 SCC 181 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK "52. The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it'."

(2019) 4 SCC 163 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

27.Section 34 of the Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts for review of arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, when an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, which includes cases of fraud, breach of fundamental policy of Indian law and breach of public morality. The other ground provided under Section 34 is patent illegality. It specifically provides that an award cannot be set aside on the ground of erroneous application of law or on re-appreciation of fact. In the decision of McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra), a reference was made to the decision of U.P. State Handloom Corpn. Ltd. v. Asha Lata Talwar15 and it was observed that under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 there is a departure from the scheme of Section 16 in the 1940 Act where perhaps the court was given wider amplitude of powers. The Apex Court interpreted the scope of interference under Section 34 and observed that the court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. The scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it. Under Section 34(2) of the Act 1996 the court is empowered to set aside an arbitral award on the grounds specified therein. There is no specific 2009 SCC OnLine All 624 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK power granted to the court to itself allow the claims originally made before the Arbitral Tribunal where it finds the Arbitral Tribunal erred in rejecting such claims. If such a power is recognised as falling within the ambit of Section 34(4) of the Act, then the court would be acting no different from an appellate court which would be contrary to the legislative intent of the Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The court shall decline to decide the claim that had been rejected even if wrongly so by the learned Arbitrator.