Parties and roles: Gayatri Balasamy is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. The Arbitration Act says a court may set aside an award on limited grounds but does not expressly use the word modify. Courts nevertheless sometimes corrected severable errors, interest, clerical mistakes or relief that would otherwise require wasteful fresh arbitration. Other decisions treated any alteration as impermissible judicial rewriting. The reference sought a principled boundary that respects arbitral finality while avoiding pointless remand for errors that can be cleanly corrected. Procedural setting: An employment dispute led to an arbitral award and later court alteration of the relief. | Conflicting Supreme Court decisions developed on whether Sections 34 and 37 permit modification rather than only setting aside an award. | Feb 2025: Five-judge Constitution Bench heard the reference. | 30 Apr 2025: Limited modification power recognised 4:1. The central problem before the Court was do courts under Sections 34 and 37 have any power to modify an arbitral award? If so, in what narrow categories and with what limits? Can Article 142 be used in arbitration matters? The controversy was considered in the framework of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss.31, 33, 34 and 37, together with Constitution arts.136, 141 and 142. The wider importance of the case lies in arbitral finality; limited judicial intervention; severability; lesser-included power; complete justice.

Supporters of limited modification relied on the lesser-included-power principle, severability, complete justice and efficient dispute resolution. Opponents argued the statute deliberately adopted a narrow set-aside model, so modification would expand judicial review and undermine party autonomy. Competing positions in context: Gayatri Balasamy's position: as the appellant/applicant, Gayatri Balasamy sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Arbitral finality; limited judicial intervention; severability; lesser-included power; complete justice. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.'s position: as respondent, ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss.31, 33, 34 and 37 and Constitution arts.136, 141 and 142, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

By 4:1, the Court recognised a limited modification power: severing invalid portions, correcting clerical/computational errors, adjusting post-award interest in appropriate cases, and using Article 142 cautiously to do complete justice. Courts cannot reassess merits or rewrite the award. Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented, holding the statute confers no modification power. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Arbitral finality; limited judicial intervention; severability; lesser-included power; complete justice and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Civil Appeal No. 8063/2024 and connected matters. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss.31, 33, 34 and 37. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss.31, 33, 34 and 37

Constitution arts.136, 141 and 142

Arbitral finality; limited judicial intervention; severability; lesser-included power; complete justice