The Indian Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Kinnari Mullick v Ghanshyam Das Damani1 dealt with two important questions relating to the setting aside of arbitral awards: whether the failure to provide reasons is sufficient grounds for setting aside an award; and what remedy a party possesses once such an award is found by a court to be unsound. Using the judgment as a starting point, the author examines the first question in the context of the recent amendment to India’s arbitration law, considering the amendment’s implications for the non-disclosure of reasons in international and domestic arbitrations, seated inside and outside India. The author then critiques the court’s reasoning on the second question regarding the parties’ available remedies, pointing out how the court’s strict and literal reliance on the corresponding provision of the UNCITRAL Model Law was misplaced. The author concludes by reviewing alternatives, namely, the recent paths taken by courts in other countries to preserve the parties’ remedies in such situations.