The parties are unable to appeal the merits of an arbitral award and the court cannot interfere with its merits. The Supreme Court noted that "an arbitrator is a judge appointed by the parties and as such an award passed by him is not to be lightly interfered with." But this does not mean that the conduct of the arbitrator is not checked. The law allows certain remedies against an award to ensure proper conduct of proceedings. Three remedies were available against an award- alteration, remission and set aside under the repealed 1940 Act. Those remedies have been put into two groups under the 1996 Act. It was handed over to the parties and the Tribunal to the extent to which the remedy was for rectification of errors. With the return of the award to the Tribunal for removal of defects, the remedy for setting aside has been moulded.

Section 34 states that, on certain grounds specified therein, an arbitral award may be set aside by a court. Under Section 34 of the Act, for the following reasons, a party may challenge the arbitral award—

• There is a certain incapacity among the parties to the agreement;
• The contract is void;
• The award shall include decisions on matters beyond the scope of the agreement to arbitrate;
• The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement.
• The award was suspended or set aside by the competent authority of the country in which it was awarded;
• It is not possible to settle the subject matter of the dispute by arbitration under Indian law; or
• It would be contrary to Indian public policy to enforce the award.

An explanation has been added to Section 34 of the Act by the Amendment Act. In the explanation, India's public policy was clarified to mean only if:

• The award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or in violation of Section 75 or 81; or was in violation of Section 75 or 81; or
• It is in breach of Indian law's fundamental policy; or,
• It is contrary to the most fundamental notions of morality or justice.

Section 34(2)(b) mentions two more reasons which are left to the Court itself to decide whether the arbitral award should be set aside:

• Disputes cannot be settled by arbitral processes
• The award conflicts with India's public policy.

The Amendment Act makes it clear that the court will not set aside an award merely on an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence. In deciding whether the award is in contravention of the basic policy of Indian law, a court will not review the merits of the dispute. A new section has also been introduced by the Amendment Act that provides that the award may be set aside if the court finds that it is vitiated by patent illegality that appears in the case of domestic arbitrations on the face of the award. For ICA in India,' patent illegality' was kept outside the scope of the arbitral challenge. Only after providing prior notice to the opposite party can a challenge under this section be filed. Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law is the basis of Section 34 of the Act and the scope of the provisions for setting aside the award is much lower than that of Sections 30 or 33 of the 1940 Act.

This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code Legal and Tax shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.