Issue for consideration : Whether the High Court erred in modifyingthe arbitral award to the extent of reducing the interest, from compoundinterest of 18% to 9% simple interest per annum.Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 – Modifi cation ofinterest by the High Court – Propriety of:Held : In the instant case, given that the arbitration commenced in1997, i.e., after the Act of 1996 came into force on 22.08.1996, the arbitrator,and the award passed by them, would be subject to this statute – Under theenactment, i.e. s.31(7), the statutory rate of interest itself is contemplatedat 18% p.a. – This is in the event the award does not contain any directiontowards the rate of interest – Therefore, there is little to no reason, for theHigh Court to have interfered with the arbitrator’s fi nding on interest accruedand payable – Unlike in the case of the old Act, the court is powerless tomodify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award ona fi nding that the conditions spelt out u/s. 34 of the 1996 Act have beenestablished. [Para 13]Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Jurisdiction under:Held : The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of thecourt u/s. 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sansthe grounds of patent illegality, i.e., that “illegality must go to the root of thematter and cannot be of a trivial nature”; and that the tribunal “must decidein accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construesa term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground”– The other ground would be denialof natural justice. [Para 15]Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.37 – Scope of AppellateCourt to review fi ndings:Held : In appeal, s.37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellatecourt to review the fi ndings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantiallyupheld u/s. 34 – It is important to notice that the old Act contained a provisionwhich enabled the court to modify an award – However, that power hasbeen consciously omitted by Parliament, while enacting the Act of 1996 –This means that the Parliamentary intent was to exclude power to modifyan award, in any manner, to the court. [Para 15]