Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

“Indirect Tax I Indirect Tax Litigation I Customs & FTP I Central Licensing I Arbitration I Advisory”

Dated: 05.05.2025

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment delivered on 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025 INSC 605) addressed two pivotal legal concerns that had long vexed India’s arbitration ecosystem:

Whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and
Whether the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to grant complete justice in arbitration-related disputes.

The Constitution Bench decisively ruled that courts do possess limited power to modify arbitral awards. Furthermore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, Article 142 can be invoked to modify awards where doing so avoids unnecessary remand and protracted arbitration.

Context: The Precedent Conflict

Earlier rulings, such as Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021), had suggested that courts could only set aside or remand awards—not modify them—under Section 34. This created an enforcement challenge where minor or severable defects in arbitral awards required the parties to re-commence lengthy arbitration proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings:

Courts Can Modify in Limited Situations

The Court recognized that while modification is not explicitly stated in Section 34, it is implicit where the invalid portion of the award is severable. The limited power of modification is exercised when:

Clerical, computational, or typographical errors are evident.
The invalidated portion does not affect the logical or legal foundation of the rest of the award.
The interest awarded post-arbitration is arbitrary or excessive.

Doctrine of Severability Reaffirmed

Under Section 34(2)(a)(iv), if part of an award deals with a dispute not contemplated by the arbitration agreement, and it is severable, the rest of the award may be preserved and enforced.
This allows courts to strike down specific parts without derailing the entire award.

Role of Article 142

The Court affirmed that Article 142 can be invoked to modify arbitral awards to do complete justice:

When statutory remedies under Section 34 or 37 do not suffice.
To avoid the unfair burden of forcing parties into a fresh round of arbitration for rectifiable defects.

“If courts can only set aside and not modify arbitral awards, parties may be compelled to re-arbitrate on issues that are otherwise settled — a wasteful, unjust, and costly exercise,” the Court observed.

Compatibility with International Arbitration Norms

The Court carefully balanced its ruling with international obligations:

The UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention emphasize finality of awards but allow domestic remedies.
Modification by courts, when limited and justified, does not render the award non-binding and thus does not violate international enforceability norms.

Legal Significance:

This judgment introduces a nuanced approach that preserves arbitral autonomy while safeguarding procedural fairness.
It prevents the impractical outcome of compelling parties to initiate fresh arbitrations over curable defects.
Courts now have a defined, lawful pathway to uphold enforceable portions of awards without overstepping into the merits.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on judicial intervention in arbitration. It empowers courts to act responsibly but effectively, ensuring justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural rigidity. “The ability to modify—when used sparingly—upholds justice and avoids frustrating the very purpose of arbitration,” the Court concluded.

In case you face any issues related to Indirect Tax-Customs, GST, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Arbitration matters and Central Licensing and related advisory matters in India then please feel free to get in touch with SJ EXIM Services.

We offer Legal advice and litigation support in matters related to Indirect Tax-Customs, FTP, other Indirect Tax matters & Arbitration law, all sorts of Central licensing and related matters. Come and explore the new way of doing business with us!

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

SC JudgementDownload

Connect with us for more-

@ Team S J EXIM SERVICES, New Delhi, IN

CP: Ms. Shubhra Jha, Founder

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005693

Web: www.sjexim.services

EMAIL: operations@sjexim.services I shubhra@sjexim.services

Facebook: www.facebook.com/sjeximservices

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/90794255/admin/feed/posts/