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.

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, the learned senior advocate, with Mr. Manav Mehta and Ms. Ankeeta Rajput, the learned advocates appearing for the appellants and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, the learned senior advocate with Mr. Aditya Mehta for Universal Legal for the respondent No.4 and the learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.3 and perused the record.

2. The two connected Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed against the judgment and order 24.10.2018 dismissing the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’), upholding the award dated 17.02.2012 and the additional award dated 30.11.2013 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.

3. The main question before us is about the scope and purport of Section 33 of the Act, 1996. To deal with the controversy at hand, certain relevant facts are to be noted at this stage. Pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the deed of partnership, the dispute between the partners of M/s. Rupam Cinema Enterprise, a partnership firm was referred to the learned sole Arbitrator. There were four sets of claimants in the partnership firm before the learned Arbitrator. The firm in the name and style of M/s. Rupam Cinema Enterprise was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 9th August, 1973 to carry out business of running two theaters viz. Apsara and Aaradhana. When the firm was constituted, there were four group of partners and the shares of the partners in the profit and loss of the firm as provided in the original partnership deed were as under :-

4. It seems that out of the abovementinoed partners, Shardaben Tribhovandas Shah died on 28th December, 1981 and Rasiklal Karsandas Patel had died on 17th May, 1997. The first group of partners, noted hereinabove, had retired from the partnership firm in the year 1989 under the settlement arrived at between the parties in a Civil Suit filed by the said group. The business of the partnership firm, however, was carried on. It seems that a dispute has arisen between the partners in the matter of maintenance of the Books of Accounts and the allegations of embezzlement and mismanagement of the fund by one set of partners. In a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, this Court appointed the Arbitrator, who proceeded to pass the original award dated 17.02.2012.

5. The claim statements were filed by three sets of claimants. The 4th set of claimants adopted the claim statement submitted by the 3rd set. As per the claim statement of the 1st set of partners, after the commencement of the partnership business in the year 1973 under the partnership deed, there have been number of changes in the constitution of the partnership firm. Number of partners either retired or died, so