Brief facts relevant to modification
It was contended that the proceedings
before the Arbitrator were without
jurisdiction for want of arbitration
agreement which cannot be cured by
appearance of the parties, even if there
was no protest or even if there was a
consent of Jala Nigam, since consent
cannot confer jurisdiction and,
therefore, the impugned Award was
null and void.
1. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. V. G. HRISHCHANDRA REDDY AND
Proposition advanced Findings
Whether the appellant on the basis of
The court did not find any merit in
Section 34 (2) (5) contend that the
the argument. As the plea was raised
arbitration clause as mentioned in the
for the first time only in
contract did not constitute arbitration
Miscellaneous First Appeal filed
agreement and the award was a nullity.
under Section 37(1)(b) of the
Arbitration Act before the High
Court. Also, Jala Nigam, on the
contrary, had consented to the Chief
Engineer, acting as an Arbitrator. For
the aforestated reasons and
particularly in view of the fact that
there has been considerable delay in
the litigation no useful purpose would
be served by keeping the matter
pending in this Court awaiting the
decision of the Constitution Bench.
The Arbitrator has meticulously
examined the claims of the contractor
under each separate Heads. We do
not see any reason to interfere except
on the rates of interest and on the
quantum awarded. The court found
the Award of the Arbitrator to be fair
and equitable.
ORS.
 2. M.P. POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. AND ORS. V. ANSALDO ENERGIA SPA
AND ORS.
Brief facts relevant to modification
It was submitted that the award of the
Arbitral Tribunal suffers from
fundamental flaws and requires
interference. Also, it was submitted that
a fault with the finding of the Arbitral
Tribunal was found that there was
misrepresentation on the part of the
Board. It was also contended that the
award is perverse and is vitiated due to
patent illegality.
Proposition advanced
Whether an arbitral award can be set
aside for being in conflict with the
public policy of India under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act and whether
the court has the power to modify the
offending part of the judgment if it is
severable from the rest.
Findings
The court observed the rights given by
Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act
are given only to a party whose consent
to the contract was, in fact, caused by
the fraud or misrepresentation therefore
it was observed that the evidence on the
relevant records were not furnished by
the Board to enable the Claimants to
ascertain the actual facts and therefore
the court held that it cannot agree with
the submission of the appellant on the
point of misrepresentation as it finds no
good reason to differ from the view
taken by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The court observed that that the award
of the Arbitral Tribunal is open to
challenge when the arbitrators fail to
draw an inference which ought to be
drawn or if they had drawn an inference
which on the face of it is untenable
resulting in miscarriage of justice. It
also has the power to modify the
offending part of the award in case it is
severable from the rest. The court
upheld the award of the Arbitral
Tribunal with the modification that the
Claimants are not entitled for the
amounts involved in the Bank
Guarantees.
 3. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. V. WESTERN GECO
INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Brief facts relevant to modification
The Respondent made a statement
before the High Court waiving pendente
lite interest as the award by the Arbitral
Tribunal for the pendente lite and future
interest was not justified.
Proposition advanced
Whether the court under Section 34
of the Arbitration Act can modify/set
aside an award of pendente lite and
future interest by the Arbitral
Tribunal.
Findings
The court while taking into consideration
the importance of judicial approach
observed that the importance of Judicial
approach in judicial and quasi judicial
determination lies in the fact so long as
the Court, Tribunal or the authority
exercising powers that affect the rights or
obligations of the parties before them
shows fidelity to judicial approach, they
cannot act in an arbitrary, capricious or
whimsical manner. Judicial approach in
that sense acts as a check against flaws
and faults that can render the decision of
a Court, Tribunal or Authority vulnerable
to challenge.
It was also held that the requirement of
application of mind on the part of the
adjudicatory authority is so deeply
embedded in our jurisprudence that it can
be described as a fundamental policy of
Indian law. This Court further observed
that the award of the Arbitral Tribunal is
open to challenge when the arbitrators
fail to draw an inference which ought to
be drawn or if they had drawn an
inference which on the face of it is
untenable resulting in miscarriage of
justice. The Court has the power to
modify the offending part of the award in
case it is severable from the rest
 4. THE TATA HYDROELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD AND ORS. V. UNION
OF INDIA.
Brief facts relevant to modification
The respondents contended that the
dispute, since it related to a defective
meter and consequent under
registering of electricity supplied, such
a dispute could be resolved only by the
Electrical Inspector. A statutory
arbitration provided in the aforesaid
sub-section ruled out any private
arbitration and therefore the Umpire
had no jurisdiction to pass an award in
respect of such a dispute even if
referred to it by the parties.
Proposition advanced
Whether the court has the power to
modify the award on the ground of an
error of law apparent on the face of the
Award under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act.
Findings
The court observed that if there is no
dispute as contemplated by Sub-
section (6) of Section 26 of the Act,
there is nothing which prevents the
parties from referring their other
disputes to arbitration for determining
the liability of the consumer in such
cases.
The court also noticed that the Umpire
took into account the readings of the
meters maintained by the Railways
themselves, but did not give to the
appellant the full benefit thereof. It
appeared unfair and inequitable that
the Union Government should deny
paying the amount for the electricity
consumed as per their own record.
Therefore, the court held that the High
Court erred in setting aside the award
of the Umpire and also held that the
award is required to be modified to the
extent that interest be awarded at the
same rate, but with effect from the
date of the award.