Courts can’t modify an arbitral award, says SC | India Information – Instances of India


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has stated {that a} choose, whereas decoding a regulation, ought to attempt to perceive the intent of legislative our bodies and quashed the Madras HC verdict which had held that the court docket’s powers to “put aside” an arbitral award underneath the arbitration regulation would additionally embody the ability to change.
“Fairly clearly if one have been to incorporate the ability to change an award in part 34 (Arbitration Act), one can be crossing the Lakshman Rekha… In decoding a statutory provision, a choose should put himself within the footwear of the Parliament after which ask whether or not Parliament supposed this consequence. Parliament very clearly supposed that no energy of modification of an award exists in part 34 of the Arbitration Act,” a bench of Justices R F Nariman and B R Gavai stated.
The bench stated it is just for the Parliament to amend the availability within the mild of the expertise of courts within the working of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and convey it in step with different legislations the world over.
The court docket handed the order on an enchantment filed by the Centre in opposition to the HC order. Solicitor Normal Tushar Mehta stated the Arbitration Act, 1996, being based mostly on the UN Commission on International Trade Law’s Mannequin Legislation on Worldwide Business Arbitration, 1985, has particularly restricted the grounds of problem and the resultant treatment, which is simply to put aside or remit in restricted circumstances.
The case pertains to the litigation on land acquisition for nationwide highways 45 and 220. The bench, nonetheless, dismissed the enchantment on information. “Givenhat in a number of related instances, NHAI has allowed equally located individuals to obtain compensation at the next charge than awarded, and given the regulation laid down in Nagpur Enchancment Belief, we decline to train our jurisdiction underneath Article 136 in favour of appellants on the information of those instances,” the bench stated.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *