SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 212

R.D.DHANUKA, V.G.BISHT
Geojit Financial Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Gurav – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Anoshak Daver a/w. Gaurav Jangle, Digant Bhatt, Juhi Shah i/b. M/s. I.V. Merchant, Advocates
For the Respondent:Aliabbas Delhiwala a/w. Gouresh C. Mogre, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides that any party to an arbitration proceeding may make an application to the arbitral tribunal for correction, interpretation of the award, or for an additional award within 30 days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period has been mutually agreed upon by the parties (!) (!) .

The application must pertain specifically to correcting errors of a clerical, typographical, or computational nature, or to seeking an interpretation of a specific part of the award. It is not intended for a review of the award on merits or for re-arguing substantive issues, which are outside the scope of Section 33(1) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the limitation period for filing such an application under Section 33(1) begins from the date the party receives the signed copy of the award. If the application is filed within this 30-day window, it is considered timely. However, if the application is of a review or merit-based nature, it does not fall within the parameters of Section 33(1), and the limitation period for filing a challenge under Section 34(3) would then commence from the date of service of the signed award (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the limitation for filing an application under Section 33(1) is strictly 30 days from receipt of the signed award, and the scope of such an application is limited to correcting clerical or computational errors or seeking clarifications, not for merits review or re-assessment of the award.


JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Admit. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service.

2. By this Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the said Act”), the appellant (original petitioner) has impugned the order dated 31st August, 2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 161 of 2017 filed under Section 34 of the said Act and also disposing of the Chamber Summons No. 448 of 2017 filed by the appellant inter alia praying for amendment of the Arbitration Petition.

3. By consent of the parties, the Appeal is heard finally at the admission stage.

4. A signed copy of the award was received by the appellant on 13th July, 2016 whereby rejecting the counter claim filed by the appellant. On 8th August, 2016, the appellant made an application purportedly under Section 33 of the said Act for correction of the award dated 8th July, 2016 and for an additional award on various grounds. On 26th August, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the said application under Section 33 of the said Act filed by the appellant. On 29th August, 2016, the appellant received a copy of the said order dated 26th August, 2016

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top