Arbitrator Cannot Modify Award On An Application Under Section 33 Arbitration Act
Case: Gyan Prakash Arya vs Titan Industries Limited
Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
Case No.: CA 6876 OF 2021
Court Observation: The original award was passed considering the claim made by the claimant as per its original claim and as per the statement of the claim made and therefore subsequently allowing the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act to modify the original award in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is not sustainable. Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected. In the present case, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical error in the original award passed by the learned arbitrator. What was claimed by the original claimant in the statement of claim was awarded. Therefore, the order passed by the learned arbitrator on an application filed under Section 33 8 of the 1996 Act and thereafter modifying the original award cannot be sustained. The order passed by the learned arbitrator in the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act. Therefore, both, the City Civil Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in dismissing the arbitration suit/appeal under Sections 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act respectively. The modified award passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[doc id=12103]
Previous Posts
Irregularity In Order Taking Cognizance Will Not Vitiate Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court
Sale Deed Executed Without Payment Of Price Is Void; Has No Legal Effect: Supreme Court
High Court Cannot Dismiss Second Appeal In Limine Without Assigning Reasons: Supreme Court Download Judgement
