[2025:RJ-JP:33126-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 300/2023 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Baran(Raj.). 2. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kota Zone, Kota. 3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Second, Chhabra, District Baran(Raj.). ----Appellants Versus M/s Manda Developers And Builders Pvt Ltd, Shiv Shakti Vihar Opp. 220 KV Power House Jaipur Road Bikaner-334001 Through Power Of Attorney Holder Hardayal Singh (General Manager Technical), S/o Shri Kripal Singh, Aged About 77 Years, R/o B-2/2, Patel Nagar, Bikaner (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hardik Singh, Adv. Mr. Avinash Choudhary, Adv. on behalf of Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Adv. Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 21/08/2025 1. Both the counsels are ad idem and state that in view of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Gayatri Balasamy Vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited:- 2025 INSC 605 and conclusions laid down therein, the present civil misc. appeal deserves to be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:33126-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-300/2023] 2. As the Commercial Court while deciding the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has proceeded to modify the award originally passed by the Arbitrator. 3. In Gayatri Balasamy Vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court examined following questions of law which reads as under: “1. Whether the powers of the Court under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will include the power to modify an arbitral award? 2. If the power to modify the award is available, whether such power can be exercised only where the award is severable, and a part thereof can be modified? 3. Whether the power to set aside an award under Section 34 of the Act, being a larger power, will include the power to modify an arbitral award and if so, to what extent? 4. Whether the power to modify an award can be read into the power to set aside an award under Section 34 of the Act? 5. Whether the judgment of this Court in Project Director NHAI vs. M. Hakeem, followed in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs. Union of India, and S V Samudram vs. State of Karnataka, lay down the correct law, as other benches of two Judges (in Vedanta Limited vs. Shenzden Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, and M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia Spa) and three Judges (in J.C. Budhraja vs. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Tata Hydroelectric Power Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, and Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd.) of this Court have either modified or accepted modification of the arbitral awards under consideration?” 4. The conclusions in this regard were drawn which reads as under: [2025:RJ-JP:33126-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-300/2023] “85. Accordingly, the questions of law referred to by Gayatri Balasamy (supra) are answered by stating that the Court has a limited power under Sections 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act to modify the arbitral award. This limited power may be exercised under the following circumstances: (I) when the award is severable, by severing the “invalid” portion from the “valid” portion of the award, as held in Part II of our Analysis. (II) by correcting any clerical, computational or typographical errors which appear erroneous on the face of the record, as held in Part IV and V of our Analysis; (III) post award interest may be modified in some circumstances as held in Part IX of our Analysis; and/or (IV) Article 142 of the Constitution applies, albeit, the power must be exercised with great care and caution and within the limits of the constitutional power as outlined in Part XII of our Analysis.” 5. In the present case, the award was not severable, therefore could not have been modified. We accordingly, set aside the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Commercial Court and restored the original award dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Arbitrator. The parties would be governed by the award passed by the Arbitrator and it shall be executable at the instance of the parties. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/475