1. Petition under Article 227 against Executing Court order modifying arbitral award by recalculating interest. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
M/S. Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4845 of 2021 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 20-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sundara Raman.M.V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. S.N.Prashanth Chandra., Advocate
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sundara Raman.M.V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. S.N.Prashanth Chandra., Advocate
An Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after the final award; corrections under Section 33 must be made within 30 days. An executing court cannot modify the substantive terms of an award or go behind the decree, as its power under Section 152 CPC is limited to clerical errors.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 31, 32, 33 and 36; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 152 - Correction of Arbitral Award - Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal - Execution of Award - Once a final arbitral award is passed, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates as per Section 32. Any request for correction of computational, clerical, or typographical errors under Section 33 must be made within 30 days from the receipt of the award, unless another period is agreed upon by the parties. Any such modification beyond the statutory period without party consent is non-est. (Paras 18.1, 18.2, 23 and 24)
(B) Execution of Decree - Scope and Ambition - An executing court cannot go behind the terms of a decree or award unless it is a nullity or passed without inherent jurisdiction. It must take the decree according to its tenor and cannot entertain objections that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. (Paras 25 and 25.1)
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 152 - Power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes is confined to accidental slips or omissions and cannot be invoked to modify, alter, or add to the substantive terms of an order or to pass an effective judicial order after judgment. It cannot be used to resolve omissions that go to the merits of the case. (Para 30)
(D) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36 - This section provides the mechanism for enforcing an award as if it were a decree, but it does not empower the court to recalculate interest or substantively modify the award. (Paras 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
An arbitral award was passed granting a money sum with interest from a specific date. Subsequent to the award, the judgment debtor claimed a typographical error regarding the interest commencement date. After the statutory 30-day period for corrections had elapsed, the arbitrator issued a clarification modifying the interest start date. The executing court accepted this clarification, recalculated the interest, and concluded that the judgment debtor had overpaid the decree holder, subsequently dismissing the execution petition as satisfied.
Findings of Court:
The arbitrator became functus officio upon passing the final award. The clarification issued eight months later was illegal as it violated the mandatory 30-day window prescribed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The executing court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-examining the award and modifying its substantive terms under the guise of correcting an arithmetical mistake.
Issues: Whether the arbitral tribunal could legally issue a clarification modifying the award after the expiry of the 30-day period under Section 33, and whether the executing court has the power under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act and Section 152 of the CPC to modify the substantive terms of an arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandate of the tribunal terminates with the final award. Corrections under Section 33 are strictly time-bound to 30 days unless parties agree otherwise. An executing court is bound by the terms of the decree and cannot modify substantive terms, such as the period of interest, as the power under Section 152 CPC is restricted to ministerial corrections of accidental slips and not judicial review of the merits.
Result: Petition allowed. The Impugned Order is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- arbitration and conciliation
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Decree holder argued Executing Court cannot modify award; judgment debtor argued correction of typographical error permissible. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Parties to bear own costs – Further proceedings before Executing Court. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Can an Executing Court modify an arbitral award by recalculating interest?
No. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or modify it unless the decree is a nullity or without jurisdiction; it must execute the award as it is. (Para 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
5. Can an Arbitral Tribunal correct a typographical error in its award beyond the 30-day period under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
No. The mandate of the tribunal terminates after 30 days unless parties agree otherwise; any correction after that period is without jurisdiction. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 )
6. Can a High Court under Article 227 quash a clarification issued by an Arbitral Tribunal?
Generally not, when a remedy under Section 34 is available. The Arbitration Act is a self-contained code; judicial intervention must be extremely circumspect. (Para 35 , 36 )
ORDER :
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
| I. | Preface |
| II. | Brief Facts: |
| III. | Impugned Order |
| IV. | Contentions of the Petitioner/Decree Holder: |
| V. | Contentions of the Respondent/Judgment Debtor: |
| VI. | Analysis and Findings: |
| VII. | Conclusion |
I. PREFACE
1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge an order dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure-A) passed in Execution Petition No.3835/2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Executing Court’).
1.1 The following reliefs have been sought in the petition:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure-A) passed in Commercial Execution Petition No.3835/2019 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore;
b. Declare that the clarification dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-G) issued by the Arbitral Tribunal is non-est, illegal and quash the same;
c. Pass any such order in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner/decree holder thus seeks to challenge two orders. One is passed by the Executing Court dated 18.02.2021, whereby the Executing Court has while adjudicating three memos filed – one by the petitioner/decree-holder dated 16.01.2020, and the other two filed by the respondent/judgment debtor dated 12.12.2019 and 16.01.2020, has modified the Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal dated 08.04.2019. The second challenge raised by the petitioner/decree-holder is to a clarification/order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 30.12.2019.
3. This Court had allowed this petition ex-parte, by its order dated 31.03.2022. Against the order dated 31.03.2022, the respondent/judgment debtor filed a review petition which was numbered as R.P.No.519/2022. Subsequently, by an order dated 01.08.2022, the order dated 31.03.2022 was recalled and the writ petition was restored to file.
4. This Court had after briefly hearing the parties on 17.04.2026, passed the following Order:
“1.The Impugned Order references a memo dated 16.01.2020 filed by the respondent/Judgment-debtor which has not been produced before this Court. In addition, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Decree-holder on the communication dated 30.12.2019 addressed to the petitioner/Decree-holder by the Arbitrator, which references an email sent to him by the respondent/Judgment-Debtor. This email has also not been produced before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent/Judgment-debtor submits that he does not have the email at present.
3. Let the respondent/Judgment-debtor place on record, along with an affidavit, both the email referred to in the communication of 30.12.2019 as well as the memo dated 16.01.2020 filed before the Executing Court. In addition, the respondent shall file a memo of upto date calculations of amounts paid by the respondent towards the Award.
4.Learned counsel for the respondent/Judgment-debtor submits that he requires two weeks’ time to produce the same.”
4.1 Pursuant to the order dated 17.04.2026, an affidavit dated 03.06.2026 was filed by the respondent/judgment debtor. Subsequently, a memo was filed by the respondent/judgment debtor asking the Court to disregard the affidavit of 03.06.2026, since it contains errors and another affidavit along with a Memo of Calculations has been filed by the respondent on 05.06.2026.
II. BRIEF FACTS:
5. The brief relevant facts necessary for this petition are that the petitioner/decree holder had entered into a contract for construction of Community Centres at thirteen locations (Phase-2) and work at the identified slums in Bangalore City for a total contract value of Rs.6,41,58,238/- with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Contract’). Due to disputes inter se the parties, the arbitration clause was invoked in terms of the contract and a sole arbitrator was appointed on 23.10.2017 for adjudication of the
