Parties and procedural roles: Gayatri Balasamy was the employee or award-holder appellant in a dispute with ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited. The company was the respondent challenging or defending the arbitral award; the larger issue concerned how far a court may modify an award rather than only set it aside or remit it. Supreme Court proceedings generally describe the sides as petitioner/appellant and respondent, or accused and prosecution, rather than plaintiff and defendant. In a suo motu case or constitutional reference, the Court or President initiates the proceeding and governments, authorities and affected stakeholders assist or respond.

Detailed story and problem statement: Gayatri Balasamy challenged an arbitral award arising from her employment dispute with ISG Novasoft. Conflicting precedents raised whether a court hearing a Section 34 challenge may only set aside an award or may modify limited portions. The controversy became legally significant because the challenged action affected liberty, equality, institutional fairness, democratic accountability, property, family relations, professional rights or another protected interest. The side seeking relief said that the governing legal safeguards had not been honoured; the opposing side relied on its statutory power, the record and the need for workable administration or enforcement.

Procedural development: A three-judge bench referred the recurring issue; five judges heard connected matters; majority and dissent delivered 30 April 2025. The matter reached the Supreme Court as C.A. No. 6178-6179/2025. Against this factual and procedural setting, the Court had to resolve: Do Sections 34 and 37 include a power to modify an arbitral award, and what are its limits?

Balasamy and supporting parties argued that severance and correction prevent wasteful re-arbitration. Opponents said modification is deliberately absent from Section 34 and judicial rewriting harms finality.

Arguments supporting relief: The petitioner, appellant, accused or assisting party seeking intervention relied on Minimal intervention; severability; limited modification of awards, the guarantees in Articles 14 and 142, and the language and purpose of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34, 37 and 43. That side argued that legal power is limited by fairness, relevant evidence, reasoned decision-making and proportionality. It asked the Court to examine the actual burden imposed and to grant effective relief rather than leave the alleged violation without a remedy.

Arguments opposing relief: The respondent government, regulator, prosecution, employer or private party relied on statutory competence, institutional autonomy, contractual or procedural rules, public interest, finality, administrative feasibility or the strength of the factual record, according to the nature of GAYATRI BALASAMY vs M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. It urged restraint and argued that the challenged outcome fell within lawful discretion or that the requirements for extraordinary Supreme Court intervention were not met.

Judicial comparison: The bench tested these positions against precedent, statutory ingredients, the evidentiary and procedural record, and consequences for similarly situated people or institutions. The controlling questions were: Do Sections 34 and 37 include a power to modify an arbitral award, and what are its limits?

By 4:1 majority, the Court recognised a narrow modification power: severing invalid portions, correcting clerical/computational errors, and adjusting post-award interest in limited cases. Courts cannot reassess merits or rewrite the award; Article 142 remains exceptional.

Reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court: The Court interpreted Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34, 37 and 43 consistently with Articles 14 and 142 and applied Minimal intervention; severability; limited modification of awards. It examined jurisdiction and legislative or statutory authority, compliance with natural justice, relevance and sufficiency of the material, proportionality of the measure and the practical consequences of the proposed rule. Where appropriate, the Court distinguished merits from procedure, individual relief from general directions, and binding ratio from observations limited to the facts.

Result for the parties: The operative directions in C.A. No. 6178-6179/2025 determine GAYATRI BALASAMY vs M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. The relief granted or refused, and any remand, bail condition, prospective operation, monitoring requirement, time limit, compensation rule or preservation of earlier proceedings, must be understood as part of the final outcome described above.

Broader legal significance: The ruling guides courts, legislatures, governments, investigators, regulators, employers or private parties confronting materially similar issues. Its scope remains subject to the qualifications expressed by the bench; where this summary and the signed decision differ, the official judgment and operative paragraphs are controlling.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34, 37 and 43

Articles 14 and 142

Minimal intervention; severability; limited modification of awards