Setting aside original arbitral award when only amended award is challenged exceeds Section 34 jurisdiction.

The arbitral proceedings between the parties resulted in an award dated August 25, 2017

The respondent filed an application under Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for corrections and additional claims

Following a recall of an earlier order due to lack of hearing, the Arbitrator passed an amended award on November 10, 2017

Both parties challenged this amended award via Section 34 petitions

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by judgment dated April 26, 2023, set aside the amended award in paragraph 28

However, the Single Judge proceeded in paragraphs 29 to 37 to also set aside the original arbitral award dated August 25, 2017

The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the original award was never prayed to be set aside and that the amended award was the only valid subject of challenge

1. Whether a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 can set aside the original arbitral award when only the amended award was challenged and no prayer for setting aside the original award was made

2. Whether, upon the amendment of an award under Section 33, the original award remains the subject of challenge

The court applied Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the correction and interpretation of awards

It relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in U.S.S. Alliance v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 778), which held that once an arbitral award is amended under Section 33, any subsequent legal challenge must be directed at the amended award and not the original award

The Court observed that the parties had correctly directed their Section 34 challenges toward the amended award dated November 10, 2017, in accordance with the law laid down in U.S.S. Alliance

It noted that the respondent’s petition contained no prayer to set aside the original award of August 25, 2017

The Bench reasoned that once the Single Judge set aside the amended award in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment, the prayers in the Section 34 petitions were effectively satisfied

The Court found that the Single Judge’s further actions in paragraphs 29 to 37—specifically the setting aside of the original award—were "superfluous" and "in excess of the jurisdiction" vested in the court

However, it set aside the findings and observations recorded in paragraphs 29 to 37, thereby restoring the original arbitral award dated August 25, 2017

The appeal was disposed of with the parties permitted to pursue further remedies available in law