SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Utkarsh Divaker Mehta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PER : HONORABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short as “the Act’ 1996”) is directed against the award of the Arbitral Appellate Tribunal dated 09.09.2021 and the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996. The appellants and respondent herein are referred as they are arrayed as parties in this appeal while referring to the facts of the case and the order passed by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal.
2. The contention is that the learned Court has erred in appreciating the fact that the appellate award dated 09.09.2021 suffers from patent illegality and that the supplementary award dated 12.10.2023 had been passed to correct the errors apparent on the record. Learned Court has, thus, erred in setting aside the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021, which is liable to be upheld while allowing the instant appeal.
3. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court: -
Gyan Prakash Arya vs. Titan Industries Limited
Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others
Master Construction Co.(P) Ltd. vs State of Orissa and another
The arbitral tribunal cannot modify its award on merits under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; it is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.
The arbitrator cannot review its own award on merits; only clerical or computational errors can be corrected under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot modify an arbitral award through reappraisal of evidence or merits; it is restricted to grounds explicitly stated in the....
The court affirmed that under Section 34, a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to reappraise evidence in arbitral awards and may only modify awards for clear errors, not on merits.
Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, arbitral award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected.
The court held that the failure to adhere to the audi alteram partem principle and rectify errors under Section 33 without the appellant's hearing invalidated the supplementary arbitration award.
Violation of Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the principles of natural justice led to the setting aside of the impugned supplementary award.
An order under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking corrections of the arbitral award, cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.
The limitation period for setting aside an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act begins from the disposal date of a correction application and not from the award's date, affirming....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for correction of an award must fall within the parameters of Section 33 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.