JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: UNDERSTANDING GAYATRI BALASAMY AND THE BOUNDARIES OF MODIFICATION

AUTHOR – ARYAN SAGAR DIXIT & KAUSTUBH KUWAR, STUDENTS AT ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

BEST CITATION – ARYAN SAGAR DIXIT & KAUSTUBH KUWAR, JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: UNDERSTANDING GAYATRI BALASAMY AND THE BOUNDARIES OF MODIFICATION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (10) OF 2025, PG. 150-162, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT –

The modification of arbitral awards by Indian courts presents a doctrinal ambiguity in arbitration jurisprudence. While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not explicitly grant courts the power to modify awards, judicial interpretations have evolved to accommodate limited interventions. Historically, the Arbitration Act of 1940 provided express statutory grounds for modification, but this provision was omitted in the 1996 Act, aligning India’s arbitration framework with the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, the Supreme Court, in Gayatri Balasamy v. Novasoft Technologies Ltd., established that courts can exercise a limited power to modify awards, particularly when correcting computational, clerical, or procedural errors. This paper critically examines the status quo of judicial reasoning on arbitral award modification, addressing the implications of Gayatri Balasamy and contrasting India’s approach with the legislative frameworks of Singapore and the United Kingdom, which explicitly allow judicial modification. The paper further analyses the role of Article 142 of the Constitution in enabling judicial interventions, the challenges posed to finality and party autonomy, and the broader consequences for India’s arbitration landscape.