An application under Section 33 for correction of an arbitral award cannot extend the limitation period for challenging that award under Section 34 if it seeks a substantive review.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an Award dated 23.02.2024 passed in favour of the Respondent, specifically with respect to Claim No.1, 2, 3 & 6 whereby the Respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.60,28,15,579/-.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:-

i. On 30.08.2012, notice inviting tender was issued by the Petitioner for design, construction of tunnels from Ch. (-) 830.912 near Janakpuri West underground station to Palam underground metro station (excluding Ch. (+) 4591.630) by shield TBM; Janakpuri West, Dabri Mor and Dashrath Puri underground metro stations by cut and cover method and works in connection with interchange facilities between existing elevated metro stations and proposed underground metro station at Janakpuri West on Janakpuri West-Kalindi Kunj corridor under the Delhi MRTS project Phase III.

ii. The Respondent submitted its bid for the said tender on 23.11.2012 and emerged as the successful bidder. A Letter of Acceptance dated 07.02.2013 was issued in favour of the Respondent for a value of Rs. 8,65,98,00,000/-.

iii. The Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Contract Agreement dated 28.02.2013, according to which the work commenced from 18.02.2013 and the stipulated date of completion was 39 months, i.e., by 17.05.2016.

iv. The project could not be completed within the stipulated time and multiple Extension of Time (EoT) was granted by the Petitioner herein to the Respondent for completion of the project.

v. On 30.07.2018, the Respondent herein submitted a claim for compensation on account of variations under the contract as well as delay in completion of the contract. The same was rejected by the Petitioner vide letter dated 22.03.2018.

vi. Disputes arose between the parties and efforts to resolve the disputes through mutual negotiations failed.

vii. Respondent herein invoked arbitration clause under the agreement dated 07.09.2019 whereafter the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 24.09.2020. viii. The majority award with respect to Claim No.1, 2, 3 and 6 was awarded in favour of the Respondent and the Petitioner's counter claims were rejected. Record indicates that the dissenting opinion was passed on 28.02.2024 whereafter an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act was filed by the Petitioner herein. The same was dismissed on 03.06.2024 whereafter the present petition was filed on 31.08.2024.

3. Before adverting to the arguments by both sides it would be imperative to bring out a list of dates for the case.

23.02.2024 - Date of Award and receipt of award by Petitioner

22.03.2024 - Date of filing of Application under Section 33 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

03.06.2024 - Date of dismissal of Section 33 Application by the Arbitral Tribunal

31.08.2024 - Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act filed by the Petitioner

4. A preliminary issue regarding limitation has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the application under Section 33 filed by the Petitioner was in the nature of a review. It is contended by the Respondent, that even though the Petitioner may purport that they sought correction of computational and typographical errors in the Award, the application was actually a comprehensive review of the award on merits. It is contended that Section 33 forbids such a review. The said application was dismissed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide Order dated 03.06.2024. It is stated that when the petition under