NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that in interpreting a law, a judge should try to understand the intentions of the legislature and has overturned the HC Madras judgment which gives the court the power to “overturn” an arbitral award in the Under the arbitration procedure had established law would also include the power to amend.
“Obviously, adding the power to amend an arbitral award in Section 34 (Arbitration Act) would be breaking the Lakshman Rekha … In interpreting a legal provision, a judge must put himself in the shoes of Parliament and” you ask then whether Parliament intended this result. Parliament clearly intended that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act would not have the power to amend an arbitral award, ”said a bench of judges made up of RF Nariman and BR Gavai. The bank said it was only up to Parliament to amend the provision in light of the courts’ experience of working with the 1996 Arbitration Act and bring it into line with other legislation around the world.
The court issued the decision based on an appeal by the center against the HC decision. Attorney General Tushar Mehta said the Arbitration Act of 1996, which is based on the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UN Commission on International Commercial Law, has expressly limited grounds for challenge and the resulting remedies, which are only for repeal or enactment under limited circumstances. The case concerns the legal dispute over the acquisition of land for national roads 45 and 220. However, the Chamber rejected the appeal. “Given that the NHAI has allowed similarly situated persons in several similar cases to receive compensation at a higher rate than awarded, and given the law set out in the Nagpur Improvement Trust, we decline to renounce our Article 136 jurisdiction in favor of the Complainants regarding the facts of these cases, “said the bank.