Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA & V.G. BISHT, JJ.
Geojit Financial Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Gurav – Respondents
Appeal No. 67 of 2019
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Arbitration - Impugned Order - Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Section 33 - Section 34 (3) - Review Application - Limitation - Award Correction
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Arbitration Petition and Chamber Summons filed by the appellant. The dispute arose from the rejection of the counter claim filed by the appellant and subsequent application for correction of the award.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the application filed by the appellant was in the nature of review and thus, the Arbitration Petition was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the said Act. The Court also held that the application for correction of the award was not within the parameters of Section 33 (1) of the said Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the application filed by the appellant, the commencement of the period of limitation for filing the Arbitration Petition, and the applicability of Section 33 for correction of the award.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the application filed by the appellant was seeking review of the award on merits, which was not within the parameters of Section 33 (1) of the said Act. The period of limitation for filing the Arbitration Petition commenced from the date of service of the signed copy of the award, and not from the date of disposal of the application under Section 33.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits.
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.
5. On 15th November, 2016, the appellant filed a Notice of Motion bearing lodging No. 3244 of 2016 inter alia praying for condonation of delay in filing the Arbitration Petition. On 10th February, 2017, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the said Notice of Motion on the ground that the Petition was not in time. On 26th August, 2017, the appellant filed Chamber Summons bearing lodging No. 448 of 2017 seeking liberty to amend the Arbitration Petition by incorporating additional facts and grounds. On 31st August, 2017, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said Arbitration Petition and also the Chamber Summons filed by the appellant on the ground that the application filed by the appellant on 8th August, 2016 was in the nature of the Review Petition and thus was not contemplated under Section 33 of the said Act. The learned Single Judge held that the Arbitration Petition was clearly barred by limitation prescribed under Section 34 (3) read with proviso thereto of the said Act. The said order of the learned Single Judge is impugned by the appellant in this Appeal filed under Section 37 of the said Act.
6. Mr. Daver, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the application filed by his client on 8th August, 2016 was within the time prescribed under Section 33 (1) of the said Act. The said application was disposed of by the Appellate Bench on 26th August, 2016. The appellant was entitled to file Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the said Act within a period of three months from the date of disposal of the said application filed by the appellant under Section 33 (1) of the said Act.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the application filed by his client before the Appellate Bench of the Arbitral Tribunal and also the order passed by the Appellate Bench thereon and would submit that the said application was not in the nature of any Review Application and thus the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the said Act would commence from the date of disposal of the application filed by under Section 33 (1) of the said Act. The Petition thus filed by the appellant under Section 34 (1) of the said Act was within the time prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the said Act.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand , strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh Versus Damini Construction Co. (2007) 10 SCC 742) and the judgment delivered by one of us (Shri R.D. Dhanuka, J.) in the case of Dr. Writer’s Food Products Pvt. Ltd v. Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2140) in support of his submission that the application filed by the appellant purportedly under Section 33 of the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
