No Section 34(4) Remission Without Findings: Rajasthan HC

Award Cannot Be Remitted Under Section 34(4) Where Findings on Contentious Issues Are Missing: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL, the award-holder, against a Commercial Court order refusing its application under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to send the award back to the Arbitral Tribunal. Applying I-Pay Clearing Services, the Court held that remission serves only to add reasons or fill gaps for findings already recorded, and cannot cure an award without findings on contentious issues (paras 37-40, 46).

Key holdings

A Section 34(4) application does not oblige the court to remit; the power is discretionary (paras 37-38).

Remission is limited to adding reasons or filling gaps for findings already in the award (paras 37, 40).

Missing findings on contentious issues, or findings ignoring material evidence, are grounds to set the award aside, not to remit it (para 40).

An application that itself says the issues were not decided separately does not warrant remission for added reasoning (paras 39, 43).

Whether a writ petition or an appeal was the proper remedy was left open (para 23).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

An arbitral award of 02.02.2019 went in favour of Eptisa, and Ajmer Smart City Limited challenged it under Section 34 before the Commercial Court (paras 2, 4). Eptisa applied under Section 34(4) for an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to eliminate the grounds for setting the award aside (para 3). Its application said the Tribunal had not decided each issue separately, had not explained two expressions used in the award while setting aside the termination order of 09.06.2017, and had given no reasons for awarding INR 4,80,00,000 for loss of business, reputation and goodwill or for rejecting the counter claim (paras 5, 34). Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur dismissed the application on 27.05.2019 (para 1).

Court's Findings

The Court left open whether a writ petition, rather than an appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act or Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was the proper remedy (paras 20-23). On merits it applied I-Pay Clearing Services, decided after the Commercial Court's order (para 37). Remission under Section 34(4) is discretionary. It may be used to record reasons for findings already given or to fill gaps in the reasoning, but an award with no findings on contentious issues cannot be remitted in the guise of additional reasons. Such an absence, or findings that ignore material evidence, are grounds for setting the award aside (paras 37-38, 40). Eptisa's own application said the issues were not decided separately and that findings ignored the material on record (para 39), and the respondent's Section 34 challenge also rested on separate issues not being decided (para 42). The facts did not warrant sending the matter back for additional reasoning (para 43). The Court did not accept that the application sought only reasons for findings already recorded (para 45). Though the Commercial Court had reasoned differently, the application could not be allowed in view of I-Pay (para 46).

Legal Principle

Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives the court discretion to let the Arbitral Tribunal record reasons for findings already in the award or fill gaps in its reasoning. It cannot remit an award that records no findings on contentious issues; that defect is a ground for setting the award aside (paras 37, 40).

Precedents Relied Upon

I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited (2022) 3 SCC 121
Followed Discussed at ¶ 16, 17, 24, 32, 37, 41, 45, 46
Remission under Section 34(4) is discretionary and serves to record reasons for findings already in the award or to fill gaps in the reasoning; an award without findings on contentious issues cannot be remitted. Followed to hold that the application could not be allowed.
Kinnari Mullick & Anr. v. Ghanshyam Das Damani AIR 2017 SC 2785
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7, 11, 25, 35
Cited by the petitioner for the three conditions of a Section 34(4) request (a request by a party, an award not yet set aside, and grounds for setting it aside); the respondent pointed out that I-Pay Clearing Services found it distinguishable.
Som Datt Builders Limited v. State of Kerala (2009) 10 SCC 259
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11, 25
Cited by the petitioner on Section 34(4); the respondent pointed out that I-Pay Clearing Services found it distinguishable and of no assistance.

View all precedents (6)

Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11, 25
Cited by the petitioner on Section 34(4); the respondent pointed out that I-Pay Clearing Services found it distinguishable and of no assistance.
Union of India v. Madan Mohan Jain & Sons & Ors. 2019 (1) WLN 189 Raj.
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 36
Noted as one of the decisions on which the Commercial Court relied in dismissing the Section 34(4) application.
Macdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. 2006 (11) SCC 181
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 36
Noted as one of the decisions on which the Commercial Court relied in dismissing the Section 34(4) application.

Statutory Provisions