conferred on the court to modify the award. While
enacting 1996 Act, the Parliament has chosen not
enact that provision. In our opinion, the intention
of the Legislature, therefore, was clear not to
confer on the court power to modify the award. It is
now well settled that scheme of Arbitration Act, 1996
is clear departure from the scheme of 1940 Act. In
1940 Act, power was conferred on the court itself to
modify the award. In 1996 Act, as observed above,
the scheme is that the power is conferred on the
court to modify the award only in one situation found
in Clause (iv) of Section 34(2), and in all other
situations the court, if an application is made by
the party, has to follow the course of action
contemplated by sub-section 4 of Section 34 or in the
absence of any application set aside the award and
leave the parties to their own remedy. In our
opinion, one more principle has to be taken into
consider. The court before 1996 Act came into force,
under the Arbitration Act had power to modify an
award. While framing 1996n Act, the Legislature was
conscious of the power of the court under 1940 Act to
modify the award. While enacting 1996 Act, the
Legislature has chosen to confer power on the court
to modify the award only in one contingency found in
