There can be no doubt, Section 34 of The Arbitration Act, 1996 cannot be held to include within it a power to modify an Award. It is important to remember, Section 34 is modelled on The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, under which no power to modify an Award is given to a Court hearing a challenge to an Award. The statutory scheme under Section 34 of The Arbitration Act, 1996 is in keeping with UNCITRAL Model Law.

See, Cybernetics Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Bisquare Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine DEL 1155; Nussli Switzerland Ltd. v. Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2014 SCC OnLine DEL 4834; Puri Construction P. Ltd. v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine DEL 9126.

– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13020 of 2020].

_____

National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1 categorically observed, any attempt to modify an Award under Section 34 would amount to “crossing the Lakshman Rekha”. On exact same issue we may also note Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private Limited, (2021) 7 SCC 657. Also, Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982. This is a clear instance of Court supplanting its view in place of the Arbitrator’s, which is not a permissible exercise and is completely de-hors to jurisdiction under Section 34.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka, [Civil Appeal No. 8067 of 2019] decided on 04.01.2024.

_____

We are conscious, a Larger Bench is seized with issue of Court’s power to modify an Award under Section 34. However, we are respectfully bound by National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal Nos. 2575-2578 of 2016] decided on 21.04.2025.

_____

Nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717 applied the maxim ‘omne majus continent in se minus‘, the greater contains the lesser. It is contended, power to set aside will include power to modify or partially set aside.

We hold, ‘omne majus continet in se minus‘ applies squarely to proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv); to set aside an Arbitral Award necessarily encompasses power to set it aside in part, rather than in its entirety. However, not all Awards can be severed or segregated into separate silos. It may not be feasible when ‘valid’ and ‘invalid’ portions are legally and practically inseparable.

A limited and restricted power of severing an Award implies a power of Court to vary or modify an Award. It will be wrong to argue, silence in 1996 Act, as projected, should be read as a complete prohibition.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 15336-15337 of 2021] decided on 30.04.2025.

_____

National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1 is not per incuriam insofar as it held, a Section 34 Court cannot modify an Award. A recommencement of proceedings, wherever legally maintainable, being expressly contemplated, cannot be brushed aside on grounds of causing hardship to parties. However, computation, clerical and typographical errors or other errors of similar nature is permissible to be corrected by a Section 34 Court.

They have relied on the legal maxim ‘omne majus continet in se minus‘, the greater contains the lesser. At first blush though it seems attractive, it has really no substance. It is apt to observe herein, mechanical deployment of legal maxims unless they apply on all fours to a case should be discouraged. There will be shades of grey and sometimes legal maxims if deployed without adequate attention may lead to pitfalls.

“Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it.” – Justice Benjamin Cardozo, Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co., 244 N.Y, 84.

What Cardozo J said of metaphors is equally true of legal maxims.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 15336-15337 of 2021] decided on 30.04.2025.

_____

Even under current Arbitration Regime, judicial intervention is narrowly confined to specific, enumerated grounds. Arbitral Decisions must adhere to Natural Justice and cannot rest solely on personal beliefs or perceived moral duties. This Arbitral Award is violative of very Principles and Notions of Natural Justice altogether, beginning from discriminatory treatment of parties as to non-consideration of arguments or even assumption of specific arguments that were not raised at all.

– Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih, SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2706 of 2024] decided on 26.09.2025.