In M/s Saisudhir Energy Ltd. v. M/s NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (2026 INSC 103, decided 30 January 2026), the compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal was modified at the Section 34 stage to give effect to the contract's own clauses, and that modified outcome was then challenged in appeal under Section 37.
The Supreme Court held that the Section 34 court could modify the award to apply the contractual clauses. It further held that the Section 37 court had exceeded its jurisdiction by recalculating the compensation itself without first finding that the award, as modified, was arbitrary.
Why it matters: this sits alongside the Court's other 2026 rulings on the narrow scope of Sections 34 and 37. An appeal court does not get to redo the arithmetic simply because it would have calculated differently; it needs a legally recognised ground to interfere.
The practical takeaway for drafting: compensation and liquidated-damages clauses that are precise and self-executing are far more likely to be applied as written — by the tribunal and by any reviewing court — than clauses that leave the calculation open to argument.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.