Trending
- UN Rights Chief Decries Global Erosion of Rule of Law
- Unpacking Descriptive Trade Marks
- LLP Compliance in India: Everything You Need to Know
- Allied Goods and Trade Mark Protection
- Legal Heirs and Representatives of Deceased Consumers: Maintainability of Complaints Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- The Role of Technology in Enforcing Arbitral Awards
- Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation in Commercial Suits
- Uniform Civil Code and Child Marriage: A Constitutional Crossroads
Author: Syedah Elena Zare
Syedah Elena Zare
Final-year law student at Symbiosis International University with a deep interest in exploring how diverse facets of law impact society. My areas of focus include Technology Law, International Human Rights Law, Intellectual Property Law, Corporate Law, and Sports Law.
Introduction Arbitration’s chief virtue is finality—the idea that once an arbitral tribunal issues its award, parties avoid protracted court battles. Yet in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft, the Supreme Court of India carved out a new “limited” power for courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) to modify awards rather than merely set them aside. On its face, this seems a sensible way to correct minor defects without sending parties back to square one. In practice, however, it risks diluting arbitration’s certainty and inviting fresh rounds of litigation. The New “Limited” Modification Power Under…
