“Obviously, if one included the power to modify an award in section 34 (Arbitration Law), it would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha … When interpreting a legal provision, a judge must put himself in the shoes of the Parliament and then ask if Parliament intended this result. Parliament had the very clear intention that there is no power to modify an award in section 34 of the Arbitration Act, ”said a bench of judges RF Nariman and BR Gavai.
The court said it was only up to Parliament to amend the provision in light of the courts’ experience in the operation of the 1996 Arbitration Act, and bring it into line with other laws around the world.
The court approved the order in an appeal filed by the Center against the HC order. State Attorney General Tushar mehta said the Arbitration Act of 1996, which is based on the United Nations Commission for International Trade LawThe 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration has specifically restricted the grounds for challenge and subsequent recourse, which is only to set aside or refer in limited circumstances.
The case concerns the litigation over the acquisition of land for national highways 45 and 220. However, the court dismissed the appeal for facts. “Since in several similar cases, NHAI has allowed similarly situated persons to receive compensation at a higher rate than that granted, and given the law established in Nagpur Improvement Trust, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under article 136 in favor of the appellants on the facts of these cases ” the court said. .