Arbitration

Introduction

In a world grappling with environmental challenges, energy conservation has emerged as a critical priority. Governments worldwide are exploring legislative measures to promote energy efficiency and sustainability. In this regard, the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill has garnered significant attention. Let's delve into the key aspects of this bill, its objectives, implications, and what it means for the future of energy management.

Understanding the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill

The Energy Conservation Amendment Bill represents a legislative effort aimed at enhancing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption across various sectors. Introduced as a response to escalating concerns over climate change and energy security, the bill seeks to amend existing energy conservation laws to align with evolving environmental goals and technological advancements.

Key Objectives of the Bill

1. Strengthening Energy Efficiency Standards: One of the primary objectives of the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill is to bolster energy efficiency standards across industries, buildings, and appliances. By setting more stringent requirements, the bill aims to minimize energy wastage and promote the adoption of energy-efficient technologies.

2. Promoting Renewable Energy Integration: The bill emphasizes the integration of renewable energy sources into the national energy mix. Through incentives and regulations, it seeks to incentivize investments in clean and sustainable energy solutions such as solar, wind, and hydropower.

3. Encouraging Public Awareness and Participation: Recognizing the importance of public awareness and participation in energy conservation efforts, the bill includes provisions for educational campaigns, outreach programs, and community initiatives. By engaging citizens and stakeholders, it aims to foster a culture of energy conservation and environmental stewardship.

Key Provisions of the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill

1. Mandatory Energy Audits: One of the significant provisions of the bill is the requirement for mandatory energy audits for large energy consumers, including industries, commercial buildings, and institutions. These audits will assess energy usage patterns, identify inefficiencies, and recommend measures for improvement.

2. Energy Performance Standards: The bill introduces energy performance standards for various appliances, equipment, and industrial processes. Manufacturers and suppliers will be obligated to meet these standards, thereby ensuring the availability of energy-efficient products in the market.

3. Incentive Mechanisms: To encourage compliance and investment in energy conservation measures, the bill offers a range of incentive mechanisms, including tax credits, subsidies, and preferential loans. These incentives aim to offset the initial costs associated with energy-efficient technologies and promote their widespread adoption.

4. Regulatory Framework for Energy Management: The bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for energy management, including the creation of regulatory bodies tasked with monitoring and enforcing compliance with energy conservation measures.

Implications of the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill

1. Economic Benefits: The implementation of the bill is expected to yield significant economic benefits through reduced energy costs, increased productivity, and job creation in the renewable energy sector. By improving energy efficiency, businesses can lower their operating expenses and enhance their competitiveness in the global market.

2. Environmental Impact: The bill's emphasis on energy conservation and renewable energy integration is poised to have a positive environmental impact, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, and conservation of natural resources. By mitigating climate change and preserving ecosystems, the bill contributes to a more sustainable future.

3. Technological Innovation: The Energy Conservation Amendment Bill is likely to drive innovation in clean energy technologies and solutions. With increased demand for energy-efficient appliances, renewable energy systems, and smart grid infrastructure, there will be greater incentives for research and development in these areas.

Challenges and Considerations

While the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill holds great promise for advancing energy efficiency and sustainability, several challenges and considerations must be addressed:

1. Cost Implications: Implementing energy conservation measures and transitioning to renewable energy sources may entail initial costs for businesses and consumers. Adequate financial support and incentives will be crucial to overcoming this barrier.

2. Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring widespread compliance with the provisions of the bill may require effective enforcement mechanisms and capacity-building efforts, particularly in developing countries with limited regulatory infrastructure.

3. Technological Barriers: The adoption of energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy solutions may be hindered by technological barriers, such as limited availability or high costs. Continued investment in research and development is essential to overcoming these challenges.

Conclusion

The Energy Conservation Amendment Bill represents a significant step towards addressing the dual challenges of energy security and climate change. By promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy integration, and public participation, the bill lays the foundation for a more sustainable energy future. However, its successful implementation will require concerted efforts from governments, businesses, and society as a whole. With the right policies, incentives, and investments, we can harness the transformative potential of energy conservation to build a greener and more prosperous world.

FAQs about Energy Conservation Amendment Bill All You Need To Know

1. What is the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill?

The Energy Conservation Amendment Bill is a legislative initiative aimed at enhancing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption across various sectors. It seeks to amend existing energy conservation laws to align with evolving environmental goals and technological advancements.

2. What are the main objectives of the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill?

The primary objectives of the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill include strengthening energy efficiency standards, promoting renewable energy integration, and encouraging public awareness and participation in energy conservation efforts.

3. How does the bill propose to strengthen energy efficiency standards?

The bill aims to strengthen energy efficiency standards by setting more stringent requirements for industries, buildings, and appliances. This is intended to minimize energy wastage and promote the adoption of energy-efficient technologies.

4. What role does renewable energy play in the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill?

Renewable energy integration is a key focus of the bill. It emphasizes the importance of integrating renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower into the national energy mix through incentives and regulations.

5. Will businesses be required to undergo energy audits under the bill?

Yes, one of the significant provisions of the bill is the requirement for mandatory energy audits for large energy consumers, including industries, commercial buildings, and institutions. These audits will assess energy usage patterns and recommend measures for improvement.

6. How will energy performance standards be implemented under the bill?

The bill introduces energy performance standards for various appliances, equipment, and industrial processes. Manufacturers and suppliers will be obligated to meet these standards to ensure the availability of energy-efficient products in the market.

7. What incentives are available under the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill?

To encourage compliance and investment in energy conservation measures, the bill offers a range of incentives such as tax credits, subsidies, and preferential loans. These incentives aim to offset the initial costs associated with energy-efficient technologies.

8. How will compliance with the bill be monitored and enforced?

The bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for energy management, including the creation of regulatory bodies tasked with monitoring and enforcing compliance with energy conservation measures.

9. What economic benefits can be expected from the bill?

The implementation of the bill is expected to yield significant economic benefits through reduced energy costs, increased productivity, and job creation in the renewable energy sector. Businesses can lower their operating expenses by improving energy efficiency.

10. What are the environmental implications of the Energy Conservation Amendment Bill?

The bill is poised to have a positive environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and conserving natural resources. By promoting energy conservation and renewable energy integration, it contributes to a more sustainable future

Introduction

Arbitration, as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, has emerged as a preferred method for settling disputes in India, especially after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to as the "Act"). The primary aim of the Act is to ensure a faster and more efficient resolution of disputes, minimizing the need for judicial intervention. To this end, the 2015 amendment introduced Section 29A to set a clear timeline for arbitrators to deliver their awards. However, this provision has led to various legal interpretations, particularly concerning the extension of timelines and the automatic termination of an arbitrator’s mandate.

In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. addressed critical questions related to Section 29A, especially the issue of whether an application for extending the time limit can be filed after the statutory period has expired. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the judgment, its impact on arbitration timelines, and its implications for future arbitration proceedings in India.

Background of Section 29A

The introduction of Section 29A through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 was a significant step toward enhancing the efficiency of arbitration in India. The objective was to ensure that arbitration proceedings are completed within a stipulated timeframe to avoid prolonged delays.

Under Section 29A(1), an arbitral tribunal is required to deliver an award within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings. Parties, by mutual consent, can extend this period by an additional 6 months as provided in Section 29A(3). If an award is not made within this extended timeframe, the mandate of the arbitrator(s) automatically terminates under Section 29A(4) unless a court intervenes to extend the timeline either before or after the expiration of the prescribed period.

Facts of the Case: Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints

The dispute in the case arose between Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) and Berger Paints India Ltd. (the respondent). The parties had entered into arbitration proceedings to resolve their conflict. However, the arbitral tribunal failed to render an award within the statutory period of 12 months, and the additional 6-month extension also lapsed without an award being delivered.

Subsequently, Rohan Builders filed an application before the Calcutta High Court, seeking an extension under Section 29A(4) of the Act. However, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that it could not be entertained after the expiration of the time limit. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether an application for extending the time limit under Section 29A(4) can be filed after the expiration of the mandate.

Supreme Court's Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Calcutta High Court, holding that an application under Section 29A(4) for an extension can indeed be filed even after the expiration of the statutory period. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the provision was grounded in the language of Section 29A(4), which permits an extension "either prior to or after the expiration of the period so specified."

Key Observations of the Court

1. Purpose of Section 29A:

   • The Court emphasized that the introduction of Section 29A aimed to promote the timely completion of arbitration proceedings. However, the legislative intent was not to impose an absolute restriction on the extension of timelines. The provision was designed to ensure that arbitration is concluded promptly but also provides flexibility where necessary.

2. Interpretation of the Term “Terminate”:

   • The High Court had interpreted the term “terminate” in Section 29A(4) to mean that the arbitrator’s mandate ceases absolutely upon the expiration of the time period. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the term was used conditionally. The termination is not absolute but subject to the discretion of the court to extend the timeline.

3. Judicial Discretion and Sufficient Cause:

   • The Supreme Court stressed that an extension under Section 29A(4) is not automatic but is subject to judicial discretion. Courts must consider whether sufficient cause exists for the delay. The court can also impose conditions, such as reducing the arbitrators' fees if the delay is attributable to the arbitral tribunal, ensuring accountability.

4. Continuation of Proceedings:

   • The second proviso of Section 29A(4) allows the arbitral tribunal to continue its proceedings if an application for extension is pending before the court. This ensures that arbitration proceedings do not come to a standstill due to procedural delays in court.

5. Avoiding Rigid Interpretations:

   • The Supreme Court warned against a rigid interpretation that would force parties to rush to court unnecessarily, even when the arbitration is proceeding smoothly. Such an approach would be counterproductive to the legislative intent of promoting arbitration as an efficient dispute resolution mechanism.

6. Impact on Future Arbitration:

   • The Court's judgment ensures that, even after the expiration of the mandate, arbitration proceedings can continue if a court grants an extension. This prevents the need for reconstituting the tribunal, saving time and resources.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Clarifying Section 29A(4)

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rohan Builders is a crucial development in Indian arbitration law. It resolves ambiguities related to Section 29A, clarifying that courts have the power to extend the mandate of an arbitrator even after the expiration of the initial timeframe. This aligns with the Act’s objective of facilitating efficient arbitration proceedings.

2. Encouraging Party Autonomy

The judgment reaffirms the principle of party autonomy in arbitration. By allowing parties to request extensions, either by mutual agreement or through court intervention, the Supreme Court reinforces the flexibility of arbitration proceedings. This reduces unnecessary judicial interference and allows parties to adapt to practical challenges during the arbitration process.

3. Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility

The ruling strikes a balance between enforcing strict timelines and recognizing the practical realities of complex arbitration cases. By allowing courts to grant extensions based on sufficient cause, the Supreme Court has ensured that genuine delays do not lead to unnecessary termination of arbitration mandates.

4. Reducing Procedural Hurdles

The judgment simplifies procedural hurdles by allowing tribunals to continue proceedings while an extension application is pending in court. This minimizes disruptions and promotes a smooth arbitration process, enhancing the overall efficiency of dispute resolution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints is a landmark judgment that provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By allowing courts to extend the mandate of arbitral tribunals even after the expiration of the statutory period, the Court has ensured that arbitration remains a viable and efficient mechanism for dispute resolution in India. The judgment strikes a delicate balance between enforcing timelines and providing flexibility to address practical challenges.

This ruling is expected to have a positive impact on India’s arbitration landscape by reducing procedural uncertainties and promoting the efficient completion of arbitration proceedings. It reinforces the role of the judiciary as a facilitator of arbitration, supporting the Act’s broader goal of expeditious and cost-effective dispute resolution.

Disclaimer

The content of this article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For specific cases, consulting a qualified legal professional is recommended.

Introduction

Arbitration in India has grown as a preferred method for resolving disputes, especially in commercial and infrastructure matters. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs arbitration proceedings in India and aims to reduce judicial interference. One key provision, Section 34, allows courts to set aside arbitral awards under limited circumstances. However, an important question lingered for years—can courts modify an arbitral award under this section?

On April 30, 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, finally addressed this critical issue. In a 4:1 majority, the Court held that modification of arbitral awards is permissible in limited circumstances, but not equivalent to appellate review. This ruling attempts to strike a balance between the need for judicial oversight and the core principle of minimal court interference in arbitration.

Background: What Is Section 34 of the Arbitration Act?

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a party to apply to set aside an arbitral award under specific grounds such as:

1. The arbitration agreement was invalid.

2. The party was not given proper notice.

3. The award goes beyond the scope of the arbitration.

4. The award is in conflict with public policy.

But the law does not mention whether a court can modify or alter the award instead of setting it aside. This created confusion among courts and litigants, with conflicting decisions over the years.

The Constitution Bench’s Verdict: Overview

The Constitution Bench addressed whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34. Here's what they ruled:

• Majority View (4 Judges - CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices B.R. Gavai, P.V. Sanjay Kumar, A.G. Masih):

  1. Modification is allowed in limited cases.

  2. Courts can modify post-award interest.

  3. Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution for modification.

  4. Rectification of clerical or computation errors is permitted.

• Dissenting View (Justice K.V. Viswanathan):

  1. No power of modification under Section 34.

  2. Only powers allowed are setting aside or remitting the award.

  3. Article 142 cannot be used to modify arbitral awards.

  4. Post-award interest cannot be altered by courts.

Severance of Award Under Section 34: All Judges Agree

The term "severance" means splitting an invalid portion of an award from the valid portion. This allows courts to partially set aside the invalid part while retaining the valid parts.

All five judges, including Justice Viswanathan, agreed that:

1. Courts have the power to sever parts of an award.

2. This is explicitly provided under Section 34(2)(a)(iv).

3. It helps maintain valid portions without starting a new arbitration.

4. Severance is allowed only when the parts are legally and practically separable.

Power to Modify vs. Power to Partially Set Aside

This was the key point of divergence between the majority and the dissenting judge.

What the Majority Held:

1. The ability to sever parts of an award implies a limited power to modify.

2. This avoids the hardship of setting aside the entire award and forcing parties to re-arbitrate.

3. Section 34’s silence on modification doesn't mean absolute prohibition.

They emphasized:

"Denying courts the authority to modify an award would defeat the purpose of arbitration by increasing costs and delays."

What Justice Viswanathan Said:

1. Severance and modification are not the same.

2. Severance means to remove, while modification means to change.

3. Courts can only remit or set aside awards under Section 34—not modify them.

4. Cited Section 43(4) to support the view that hardships due to setting aside are part of the arbitration system.

Rectifying Clerical and Typographical Errors

The majority clarified that courts have the power to correct manifest errors like:

1. Clerical mistakes.

2. Arithmetic or calculation errors.

3. Typing or obvious factual mistakes.

They said this power is similar to Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows correction of accidental errors in judgments.

However, this does not mean the court can review or alter the award’s merits.

Justice Viswanathan's View:

1. Agreed that courts can rectify errors, but this is a narrow exception.

2. Rejected the idea of a broader modification power.

Interest on Awards: Different Types, Different Rules

There are two types of interest in arbitral awards:

1. Pendente Lite Interest – During the arbitration.

2. Post-Award Interest – After the award is announced.

Majority’s View:

1. Courts cannot modify pendente lite interest.

2. Courts can modify post-award interest in limited cases, especially if:

   1. The arbitrator's rate is unjust.

   2. Market shifts make the rate unreasonable.

   3. It helps avoid setting aside the whole award.

They emphasized that Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration Act allows post-award interest and that courts can tweak it when needed.

Justice Viswanathan's Dissent:

1. Firmly rejected the court’s ability to change any interest amount.

2. Stated that even if the interest rate is flawed, the proper remedy is to remit the matter under Section 34(4).

3. Argued that India follows the UNCITRAL Model Law, which bars such modifications.

Use of Article 142 of the Constitution

Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure complete justice.

Majority Opinion:

1. Article 142 can be used to modify awards in rare cases.

2. Should be exercised with great caution.

3. Cannot be used to review the merits of an award.

Justice Viswanathan’s Objection:

1. Strongly opposed using Article 142 to modify arbitral awards.

2. Said it would violate the Arbitration Act.

3. Article 142 cannot override the express limitations in the law.

Enforcement of Foreign Awards: A Divided View

A concern was raised that modifying arbitral awards could affect their enforceability in foreign countries, especially under the New York Convention.

Majority's Response:

1. The concern is unfounded.

2. The Convention respects the domestic law of the seat of arbitration.

3. Since Indian law now permits limited modification, it's valid under the Convention.

Justice Viswanathan’s Warning:

1. Disagreed strongly.

2. Said modifications could threaten enforcement of Indian awards abroad.

3. Unlike the UK or Singapore, India lacks provisions recognizing court-modified awards.

Statutory Arbitration: Special Case?

Statutory arbitrations, like those under the National Highways Act, are not by mutual consent but compulsory under law.

Some argued that courts should be allowed to modify awards (e.g., compensation in land acquisition cases) in these cases.

Verdict from Both Majority and Dissent:

1. Section 34 does not differentiate between statutory and consensual arbitration.

2. Uniform standards apply.

3. No special modification power for statutory arbitrations.

Revisiting the NHAI v. M. Hakeem Case

In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem that courts cannot modify arbitral awards under Section 34.

Current Judgment:

1. Majority view indirectly departs from Hakeem, without expressly overruling it.

2. Justice Viswanathan upheld Hakeem, calling it a correct and binding precedent.

Suo Moto Remand by Courts

Can courts on their own send an award back to the tribunal for correction?

Majority Opinion:

1. Courts can remit an award under Section 34(4), but only if a party requests it.

2. The request can be oral or written.

3. This power is separate from the power to modify.

Justice Viswanathan's Take:

1. Courts can suo moto remit the matter without a request.

2. Called it a “safety valve” in the arbitration process.

Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners and Businesses

Conclusion

This landmark judgment has clarified a long-debated issue in arbitration law. While the Supreme Court has now allowed limited modification of arbitral awards, it has simultaneously placed important checks and balances to avoid misuse of this power.

For legal professionals, this decision provides new tools to address genuine errors in arbitral awards without restarting arbitration. For businesses, it ensures faster dispute resolution and less cost escalation.

However, the dissenting opinion also acts as a cautionary note, reminding courts and litigants to respect the limited role of judiciary in arbitration matters.

As the Indian arbitration ecosystem matures, this ruling could pave the way for further clarity and confidence in the arbitration process—both domestically and internationally.