JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

573

Message
show

Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited

This case will determine whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Petitioners Arguments
As the proceedings before the Constitution Bench have not commenced, the petitioner has not yet put forth her arguments.
Responders Arguments
As the proceedings before the Constitution Bench have not commenced, the respondents have not yet put forth her arguments.
Last Listed On
2025-04-30
Start Date
2024-02-20
End Date
2025-04-30
Card Stage Date
2025-01-23
Review Petition No
SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Arbitration
Comment
NA
Pendency
1 year, 2 months, 10 days
Disposal Time
1 year, 2 months, 10 days

5 Judge Bench

Bench constituted

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
true

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

This case arises out of an arbitration between Gayatri Balsami and ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited. Gayatri had filed a criminal case against ISG’s CEO and Vice President for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 . The company had in turn initiated proceedings of defamation and extortion against Gayatri. The arbitral tribunal awarded her a sum of Rs. 2 crore compensation. When Gayatri moved the Madras High Court to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the court modified the award to provide her an additional compensation of Rs. 1.6 crore. However, a division bench of the same court then reduced the award to Rs. 50,000, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.

Do courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ? If so, to what extent?

Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The court referred the present matter to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement in light of conflicting precedents.

McDermott International v. Burn Standard

Project Director, NHAI v. M Hakeem

MMTC Ltd. Sangyoung Construction v. NHAI

Vedanta v. Shenzden Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company

Oriental Structural Engineers v. State of Kerala

Tata Hydroelectric Power Supply v. Union of India

Reconciling Inherent Powers of The High Court to Modify and Vary Awards in Compliance to Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Reconciling Inherent Powers of The High Court to Modify and Vary Awards in Compliance to Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Source Of Info
SSRN
Date Of Fr
2024-06-21

To modify or not to modify an Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Constitution Bench to decide - Part I

To modify or not to modify an Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Constitution Bench to decide - Part I
Source Of Info
Bar and Bench
Date Of Fr
2024-03-20

Legal Precedent or Confusion? Supreme Court's Review of Arbitral Award Modifications

Legal Precedent or Confusion? Supreme Court's Review of Arbitral Award Modifications
Source Of Info
Lexology
Date Of Fr
2024-02-22