The power to request interpretation of an arbitral award under Section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is permissible only if the parties have agreed to it. The power to interpret the award is not meant to be used as a mechanism for asking the Arbitrator to re-examine the conclusion arrived at by him.

Tirath S. Thakur, J.—Disputes relating to the termination of a contract for construction of a Telephone Exchange at Karisandra in Bangalore having arisen between the Petitioner-contractor and the Department of Telecommunications, a reference for adjudication of the same was made to Sri M. Jayakumar as sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing both the parties, made an award, by which the claim made by the Petitioner was allowed only to the extent of Rs. 35,000/- besides an amount of Rs. 16,608/- towards interest. Future interest from the date of the award till date of payment at the rate of 12% p.a. was also awarded. An application purporting to be one under Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interpretation of the award was then made by the Petitioner, which has been upon consideration rejected by the Arbitrator in terms of order dated 13th of October, 2000 impugned in this Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Arbitrator was not justified in rejecting the application as the Petitioner had made out an excellent case for interpretation. He urged that the order impugned was laconic, hence unsustainable in law and that this Court could under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with the same with a direction to the Arbitrator to re-examine the matter.

3. Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for correction and interpretation of the awards. It runs thus:

Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.-(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties-

(a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award;

(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.

(c) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under Sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award.

(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.

(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other party, may request, within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award.

(5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under Sub-section (4) to be justified, it shall make the additional arbitral award within sixty days from the receipt of such request.

(6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make a correction, given an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (5).

(7) Section 31 shall apply to correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional arbitral award made under this section.

4. A plain reading of the above would show that the provision envisages not only correction of any computation, clerical or typographical errors, but also interpretation of any specific point or part of the award. While Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 33 deals with correction of errors, Clause (b) provides for interpretation. The difference in the mechanism provided for invoking the said two provisions apparently is that while a request for correction of any computation, clerical or other error can be made by any party, a request for interpretation of any specific point or part of the award under Clause (b) is permissible o