The Supreme Court examined whether a nearly four-year delay in pronouncing an arbitral award and the failure of the award to grant final relief could justify setting it aside. The dispute arose from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) relating to construction obligations and the validity of sale deeds executed by the developer using only a copy of a power of attorney, while the original remained in escrow. The arbitrator reserved the award in July 2012 but delivered it only in March 2016, without any convincing explanation. The Court held that delay alone is not an independent ground under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an award. However, if such delay results in lapses in reasoning, non-application of mind, or indecisiveness, the award may become patently illegal or contrary to public policy. Importantly, a party need not seek the arbitrator’s removal under Section 14(2) before approaching the court under Section 34. The Court also ruled that an award that fails to resolve disputes, forcing parties into further litigation, is legally unsustainable. Finding the award unworkable, delayed, and contrary to public policy, the Supreme Court set it aside and, invoking Article 142, moulded a final settlement to do complete justice.