{"id":30490,"date":"2026-08-19T11:34:41","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T11:34:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=30490"},"modified":"2026-08-19T11:38:31","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T11:38:31","slug":"section-34-arbitration-act-setting-aside-modification-arbitral-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-34-arbitration-act-setting-aside-modification-arbitral-award\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 34 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court Rules on Setting Aside and Modification of Arbitral Awards"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/span>I. Introduction: Finality as the First Principle of Arbitration<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Arbitration is chosen precisely because it promises what litigation often cannot: a swift, final, and commercially sensible resolution rendered by a tribunal of the parties’ own choosing. That promise would be illusory if every award were vulnerable to a fresh trial on the merits before a court. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the 1996 Act”), modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, therefore confines judicial interference with an award to a closed and exhaustive list of grounds set out in Section 34. The provision does not create an appeal; it creates a supervisory jurisdiction of last resort, exercisable only where the arbitral process or its outcome offends specific, narrowly defined standards.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n