This is where expectations and the statute diverge most sharply. Arbitration trades appellate review for finality, and the courts guard that bargain.
There is no merits appeal
Section 34 provides for an application to set aside an award, not an appeal. A court hearing it does not re-appreciate evidence, does not substitute its own view, and will not interfere merely because another conclusion was possible. The Supreme Court has repeated this many times, and applications that read like appeals are dismissed.
The 2019 amendment tightened this in the text itself. Where the section once required the applicant to furnish proof of a ground, it now requires him to establish it on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal. The challenge is fought on the material that was before the arbitrator, so building a fresh evidentiary case in the setting aside court is misconceived, and the record has to be complete: if a document or a submission matters to your challenge, it needed to be on the tribunal's file.
The grounds
- A party was under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement is not valid
- The party was not given proper notice of the appointment or the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case
- The award deals with a dispute outside the scope of the submission to arbitration
- The composition of the tribunal or the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement
- The subject matter is not arbitrable
- The award conflicts with the public policy of India, which after the 2015 amendment is confined to fraud or corruption, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, or conflict with basic notions of morality or justice
- For purely domestic awards only, patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. This does not include an erroneous application of the law or a re-appreciation of evidence
Three months from the date you received the award, extendable by a maximum of 30 further days on sufficient cause, and not one day beyond. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not rescue a late application. Diarise the date the award is received, not the date it is signed.
A Section 34 application must be filed only after issuing a prior notice to the other party, and must be accompanied by an affidavit endorsing compliance with that requirement. Applications are returned for the missing affidavit, and the days lost come out of a period that cannot be extended. The statute then directs disposal within one year from the date that notice is served, which is a standard you can press for rather than a guarantee. Note too that where a request has been made to the tribunal under Section 33 to correct a computation, clerical or typographical error, or, if the parties have so agreed, to interpret a specific point or part of the award, the three month period runs from the disposal of that request rather than from receipt of the award. That request must itself be made within thirty days of receiving the award unless the parties agreed another period, and the same thirty days applies to a request for an additional award on a claim that was presented but left undecided. Decide on it at once.
Remitting defects and the limited power to modify
Where it is appropriate and a party asks, the court may adjourn the proceedings to give the tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitration or take such other action as will eliminate the grounds for setting aside. Where the complaint is a curable defect, such as a head of claim left undecided, that can save the award and is far quicker than a fresh arbitration, so ask for it in the alternative. The majority in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies (2025) also recognised limited modification powers, including severing an invalid part from a separable valid part, correcting clerical or computational errors, and modifying post-award interest in appropriate circumstances. These powers do not create a general appeal on the merits.
Does a challenge stop enforcement
No, not automatically. Since the 2015 amendment, filing a Section 34 application does not operate as a stay of the award. You must apply separately for a stay, and the court may impose conditions, commonly a deposit or security for the awarded amount.
The section spells out that discretion. A stay is granted for reasons recorded in writing and on such conditions as the court thinks fit, and for a money award the court must have due regard to the provisions for stay of a money decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. One exception cuts the other way: where the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that the arbitration agreement or the contract on which the award rests, or the making of the award itself, was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it is to stay the award unconditionally. If that is your case, plead it specifically and with material; it is the only route to a stay without paying in.
After Section 34
Section 37 allows an appeal against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an award. Beyond that lies only a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, which is discretionary and rarely entertained on the merits of a commercial award.
No second appeal lies from an order passed in a Section 37 appeal, though the right to approach the Supreme Court is preserved. Note also that the court hearing the challenge is fixed by the earlier Part I application, so a Section 9 application filed at the outset determines where the Section 34 petition goes. Our note on setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 works through the grounds and the drafting, and our guide to the arbitral award in India covers what a valid award must contain, which is often where a challenge begins.
One limit worth stating plainly: there is no Section 34 challenge to a foreign award. An award made at a foreign seat is challenged at that seat under that law, and in India it is resisted at the enforcement stage on the narrow grounds the Act provides. Our note on enforcing a foreign arbitral award in India sets out those grounds.