High Court Rules Out Modification of Arbitral Awards – Reaffirms Strict Limits Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act”
The Delhi High Court has held in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & ANR., setting a precedent on the limits of judicial intervention in arbitral awards. The court overturned the previous judgments dated 12 December 2018 and 08 August 2019, which had modified the interest rate awarded by an Arbitral Tribunal.
In a significant observation, the bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, highlighted the strict boundaries for court intervention under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court stated, “The legal position which prevails today clearly renders the aforesaid order unsustainable on this score alone,” aligning with the Supreme Court’s interpretations in key precedents including NHAI vs. M. Hakeem & Anr. And Larsen Airconditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India & Ors.
The court’s decision focused on the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that modifications to arbitral awards do not fall under the category of ‘setting aside’ an award. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the autonomy and finality of the arbitration process, a key component in dispute resolution.
The case, whichh involves the modification of an interest rate initially set at 18% by the Arbitral Tribunal to 12% by the learned Single Judge, has now been restored for fresh consideration. The High Court’s decision sends a clear message about the limited role of judicial intervention in arbitration, a move that is likely to influence future arbitration-related litigation.
Date of Decision: 30 November 2023
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
