M/S Shree Ganesh Rice Mills And Another v. The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited And Others

   

  

   

 
!"#!, 2023 







 
!!

 "# $
%#&'

()
#!!


( !

 
*+
 

!

 

"  $% "& ' ( '  %, 
-
#!.
 ) 
/ 

!!

 
&#
0 1 .
 )  / 
 0!


%#.
 ) 

/ 

!

  ( ' )&* #+, $
!!
# 
 
3
/
' 

(    .




/
44) /
 


+

/54

1


6 7 8 $
4)



!!



9
/
!

1 # 
 /

.

1

 
'
+

/

 :/
/


!



4+
/  +

4
/

/ 

 !
5
 

$
!#
'1
 !
1
/

' 


!  4
# +


1 
6 7 8

-
'& 
/
'5

!!

.

1
1 +

/

$
#
)

)


!
!!



4

 
 

 )
'5

 
/

#!+
( #


  

     

 



     

   !

" #  $%





&'() *++ & $
#!+
( #
/
  4

 
 
 ,   # $



 " -  %   % 

'

&.) && *++

/ .


 $    

0  1  

 % 2 "

"   3 
" 2

& *++ 4  &5.






!

1 # 
 /



+

/5

'
1
$
 ) !

 

;#
'

1, "39. As has been pointed out by us hereinabove, McDermott (supra) has been followed by this Court in Kinnari Mullick (supra). Also, in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 157, a recent judgment of this Court also followed McDermott (supra) stating that there is no power to modify an arbitral award under Section 34 as follows: - (f) In law, where the Court sets aside the award passed by the majority members of the tribunal, the underlying disputes would require to be decided afresh in an appropriate proceeding.

Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court may either dismiss the objections filed, and uphold the award, or set aside the award if the grounds contained in subsections (2) and (2A) are made out. There is no power to modify an arbitral award.

40. It can therefore be said that this question has now been settled finally by at least 3 decisions of this Court. Even otherwise, to state that the judicial trend appears to favour an interpretation that would read into Section 34 a power to modify, revise or vary the award would be to ignore the previous law contained in the 1940 Act, as also to ignore the fact that the 1996 Act was enacted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which, as has been pointed out in Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, makes it clear that, given the limited judicial interference on extremely limited grounds not dealing with the merits of an award, the 'limited remedy' under Section 34 is co- terminus with the 'limited right', namely, either to set aside an award or remand the matter

 under the circumstances mentioned in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996."

 *
 #
/ 

!

 

 


!

 

!#

4
! !

 

)1
/

 
/

#!+
( # 
'

) ( ;# 5.

+!#4  


 


+ 
+
'<


( #
   

'& 
#   /


/

  
1
1


+


'
 .

! 4 !!

  .
/
5

 
/## #
 *AVNEESH JHINGAN ,  

20th March, 2023 


 =
  !<4 >?

=
!

'

>?