(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996) to set aside the award dated 05.12.2013 and Additional Award dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Respondents 2 to 4.)

1. Instant ‘Original Petition’ (‘OP’ for brevity) has been filed under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’ (‘A & C Act’ for brevity) assailing an arbitral award dated 05.12.2013 and corrected arbitral award dated 18.02.2014 (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘impugned award’ for the sake of convenience and clarity made by a three member ‘Arbitral Tribunal’ (hereinafter ‘AT’ for brevity) constituted by Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in instant OP.

2. Petitioner in instant OP before this Court was the claimant before AT and first respondent in instant OP before this Court was the sole respondent before AT. As mentioned supra, 'impugned award' is a collective reference to an arbitral award dated 05.12.2013 and a corrected version of the arbitral award dated 18.02.2014. This corrected version of arbitral award has been referred to as ‘Additional Award’ in instant OP. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be referred to as an 'additional arbitral award'. A perusal of Sub-section (7) of Section 33 of A & C Act brings to light that any change made to an arbitral award post making of the arbitral award fall in three categories and they are (a) correction, (b) interpretation and (c) addition. For the purpose of clarity, this Court deems it appropriate to extract sub-section (7) of Section 33 of A & C Act and the same reads as follows:

'33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.-

(1)..........

(2)............

(3)...........

(4)...........

(5)...........

(6)...........

'(7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional award made under this section'

To be noted, caption to Section 33 itself contains a clear adumbration of aforesaid three categories of post award addenda as caption reads 'Correction and interpretation of award; additional award'.

3. Therefore, a perusal of the 18.02.2014 proceedings of AT post making of the award dated 05.12.2013 reveals that it would be appropriate and apt to refer to 18.02.2014 award as 'Corrected Arbitral Award' rather than referring to the same as ‘Additional Arbitral Award’. This will not be a mere matter of semantics or different nomenclatures, as the statute itself perceives three kinds of changes to an arbitral award post making of the same and therefore, it is a matter of appropriate statutory description. Considering the nature of the matter before this Court, it may not be necessary to delve into this aspect of the case any further and it would suffice to say that arbitral award dated 05.12.2013 made by AT and the corrected arbitral award dated 18.02.2014 shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned award’.

4. Essential facts necessary for appreciating this order are set out infra under the caption ‘FACTUAL MATRIX’.

5. FACTUAL MATRIX:

5(i) The case file placed before this Court consists of Original Petition, one typed-set of papers filed by the petitioner, two volumes of typed-set of papers filed by the first respondent, a compilation of case laws and several other papers. This Court had to embark upon an exercise of wading through all these constituents and other papers placed before this Court as part of case file to appreciate and relate to the submissions made by learned counsel and learned senior counsel to cull out facts. One convenience set containing most relevant, crucial and critical papers in cases of this nature, will serve the purpose better.

5(ii) A super built up area admeasuring 29500 sq.ft or thereabouts in 5th Floor of a building, which goes by the name 'Prince Techno Park' at No.10, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 096 shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘demised premises’ for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5(iii) This Court is inform