[2025:RJ-JP:38119-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2162/2020 1. Vodafone Digilink Limited, Registered Office At C-48, Okhala Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 (Name Of The Company Changed To Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Then Again Changed To Idea Cellular Limited And Now Known As Vodafone Idea Limited And Having Its Registered Office At Suman Tower, Plot No. 18, Sector-11, Gandhinagar, Gujarat (382011) Through Authorized Representative Ronak Kumavat. 2. Regional Chief, Vodafone Digilink Limited, (Presently Changed The Name Of Company As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Then Again Changed To Idea Cellular Limited And Now Known As Vodafone Idea Limited) Regional Office-5 Floor, Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017 Raj. Having Its Registered Office At Suman Tower, Plot No. 18, Sector-11, Gandhinagar, Gujarat- 382011 ----Appellants Versus M/s S.U. Enterprises, B-73A, Raman Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. Through Its Sole Proprietor Sh. Udal Singh S/o Ram Karan Singh, Having Shop/office No. 11,12 Das And Yadav Complex, Plot No. 187, Panchwati Circle, Raja Park, Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2594/2020 M/s S.U. Enterprises, Having Its Office At B-73A, Raman Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Through Sole Proprietor Mr. Udal Sinhg. ----Appellant Versus 1. M/s Vodafone Digilink Limited, Having Its Registered Office At C-48, Okha Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi (At Present Vodafone Mobile Services, Having Its Registered Office At Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400013- Through Authorized Signatory). 2. Regional Chief, Vodafone Digilink Limited, (Presently Changed The Name Of Company As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) Regional Office 5Th Floor, Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- 302017 (Raj.) Through Its Authorised Officer Sh. Lokesh Sugandh. [2025:RJ-JP:38119-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-2162/2020] ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Suruchi kasliwal, Adv. with Ms. Alisha Chopra, Adv. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2162/2020 Mr. Aditya Bohra, Adv. with Mr. Kanishk Singhal, Adv. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2594/2020 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Bohra, Adv. with Mr. Kanishk Singhal, Adv. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2162/2020 Ms. Suruchi kasliwal, Adv. with Ms. Alisha Chopra, Adv. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2594/2020 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 17/09/2025 1. The issue raised in both the appeals is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble The Supreme Court in Gayatri Balasamy Vs. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited 2025 SCC Online SC 986. 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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2162/2020 has contended that the Commercial Court could not have modified the award passed by the Arbitrator, as the award was not severable. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Gayatri Balasamy (supra). The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court examined following questions of law, which read as under: “1. Whether the powers of the Court under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and [2025:RJ-JP:38119-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-2162/2020] 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?” The conclusions in this regard were drawn which reads as under: “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. [2025:RJ-JP:38119-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-2162/2020] (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.” 4. More specifically, in the context of severability, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gayatri Balasamy (supra) observed that: “the power of partial setting aside should be exercised only when the valid and invalid parts of the award can be clearly segregated.” 5. Keeping the said principle in mind, we have perused the award passed by the sole Arbitrator in the present case and find that the award was not severable and therefore the same could not have been modified. We accordingly, set aside the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Commercial Court and restore the original award dated 04.02.2018 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. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeals are allowed as above. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AVINASH GULERIA /117-118