A setting-aside petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is usually a binary contest: the award survives or it falls. Section 34(4) opens a third path. Where it is appropriate and a party asks for it, the court may adjourn the setting-aside proceedings for a period it fixes, to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the proceedings or take such other action as will eliminate the grounds for setting aside. The provision can rescue an award from defects that are curable, but it is hedged with limits that both sides of a challenge need to understand.
The text and its purpose
Section 34(4) provides that on receipt of an application for setting aside an award, the court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it, in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of the tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
The purpose is economy. Arbitration exists to produce a final, enforceable decision without the cost of relitigation. Where an award is threatened by a defect the tribunal itself can repair — most typically, findings supported by thin or incomplete reasons — striking the award down and forcing a fresh arbitration wastes everything the parties have spent. Section 34(4) lets the tribunal complete its work so that the award, cured, can stand.
The request must come from a party
The court cannot act suo motu. Two conditions must coincide: the court must consider remission appropriate, and a party must have requested it. The party seeking remission should therefore make a specific application or prayer in the Section 34 proceedings, identify the precise defect said to be curable, and explain what action the tribunal would take. A vague plea to send the matter back, made for the first time in appeal, sits poorly with the scheme.
What can be cured, and what cannot
| Capable of cure under Section 34(4) | Beyond cure |
|---|---|
| Findings recorded in the award but supported by inadequate or gap-ridden reasoning, which the tribunal can supplement | No finding at all on a claim or issue — the tribunal cannot invent a decision that was never made |
| Procedural lapses the tribunal can correct by resuming the proceedings, such as dealing with material it overlooked recording | Perverse findings — reasons cannot rehabilitate a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could reach on the record |
| Omissions of a formal character that leave the substance of the adjudication intact | A rehearing of the merits, fresh evidence, or a new case for either side dressed up as elimination of grounds |
The dividing line is between completing an adjudication and conducting a new one. Remission gives the tribunal an opportunity to eliminate the ground of challenge; it does not reopen the reference. Where the complaint is that the tribunal simply got it wrong, or ignored the contract in a way that vitiates the finding itself, Section 34(4) offers the award-holder no shelter, because better prose cannot change what was decided.
Timing and strategy for the award-holder
The tactical question arises for the party defending the award. If the setting-aside petition attacks the reasoning as inadequate on a discrete issue, the award-holder faces a choice: defend the award as it stands and risk annulment, or seek remission so the tribunal can shore up the reasoning. Considerations that inform the choice include:
Effect of remission on the Section 34 proceedings
An order under Section 34(4) adjourns the proceedings for a fixed period; the petition remains alive. The tribunal, within that window, resumes and takes the action it considers will eliminate the ground — commonly, delivering supplementary reasons. The proceedings then return to the court, which examines the challenge against the award as supplemented. If the cure succeeds, the ground falls away; if the tribunal cannot or does not eliminate it, the court decides the petition on the merits of the challenge. The mechanism thus keeps control with the court while the pen returns briefly to the tribunal.
Not a power of modification
Section 34(4) should not be mistaken for a judicial power to modify awards. The setting-aside court examines the award within the confined grounds of Section 34; it does not sit as an appellate forum rewriting the operative directions, and the scope of any judicial variation of awards remains a narrow and closely debated question distinct from this provision. Under Section 34(4) it is the tribunal that acts, and only to eliminate grounds for setting aside. That design preserves the boundary on which the whole arbitral scheme rests: the merits belong to the tribunal, and the court supervises without substituting itself. Appeals from the outcome of the setting-aside proceedings follow the ordinary route under Section 37.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the court remit the award to the tribunal on its own?
No. Section 34(4) operates only where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party. The request is the jurisdictional trigger: without an application by one of the parties, the court cannot of its own motion adjourn the proceedings and send the matter back to the tribunal. In practice the request almost always comes from the party defending the award.
What kinds of defects can the tribunal cure on remission?
Curable defects are those the tribunal can eliminate without redeciding the dispute: gaps or inadequacy in the reasoning supporting findings that already exist, and procedural lapses capable of correction. Where the award contains no finding at all on an issue, or the finding is perverse, there is nothing to cure by better reasons, and remission is not the answer.
Does remission mean the setting-aside petition is over?
No. The court adjourns the proceedings for a fixed period; it does not dispose of them. After the tribunal acts, the setting-aside court resumes and examines the award as supplemented. If the tribunal has eliminated the ground of challenge, the petition fails to that extent; if not, the court proceeds to decide the challenge on the record as it stands.
Is Section 34(4) a power to modify the award?
It is not. The section permits the tribunal, not the court, to act, and only so as to eliminate grounds for setting aside. The setting-aside court itself does not sit in appeal and has no general power to rewrite or improve an award. Section 34(4) is a mechanism of restoration to the tribunal, deliberately distinct from appellate correction.