Research and Articles

Hotline

- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
June 23, 2025Modification of awards: India’s Supreme Court redefines scope of judicial interference
This article was first published in globalarbitrationreview.com (June, 20, 2025).
The Supreme Court of India in Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited settled a longstanding issue in Indian arbitration law, i.e., whether courts can modify arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
While section 34 of the Act explicitly allows courts to "set aside" arbitral awards on specific grounds, it is silent on whether courts can "modify" or “vary” an award. This silence created uncertainty, with some courts interpreting their powers narrowly (allowing only complete setting aside of awards) and others adopting a more interventionist approach by modifying awards to correct perceived errors or to do complete justice. The judgment resolves conflicting judicial opinions and holds that while section 34 of the Act does not grant courts a general power to modify arbitral awards, there are limited circumstances where modification may be permissible.
Please click here for our detailed article.
Authors
- Shruti Dhonde, Mohammad Kamran and Ashish Kabra
You can direct your queries or comments to the relevant member.