$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12.09.2024 + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 36/2024 M/S PRADEEP VINOD CONSTRUCTION CO.

.....Decree Holder Through: Mr S.W. Haider and Ms Pooja Dua, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr Om Prakash, SPC for UOI with Mr Nitish Pande, Ms Swati Mishra and Mr Sarthak Udaipuria, Advs.

(through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL REVIEW PET. 331/2024

1. This is a petition seeking review of the order dated 02.08.2024 along with modification order dated 14.08.2024 wherein the objections under section 47, CPC of the judgment debtor were dismissed and the captioned enforcement petition was disposed of directing release of awarded amount in favour of the decree holder. The operative portion of the order dated

02.08.2024, as sought to be reviewed, reads as under:-

“3.The only objection filed by the judgment debtor is in the form of reply / objections under Section 47 read with Order 21, CPC to state that the decree holder is a partnership firm and the opening line of the award dated 23.09.2023 reads as under:-

Digitally Signed “Claimant i.e. M/s Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956.”

4.Hence, the judgment debtor states that the award as made cannot be executed, as the decree holder is a partnership firm.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The opening part of the award i.e. M/s Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 seems to be a typographical error.

7. A perusal of the Award shows that the Cause Title (at page 22 of the paper book) states “M/s Pradeep Vinod Construction Co., 5C/51, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, through its partner i.e. Mr.

N.K. Agarwal (Partner).”

8. The petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the decree holder in this court also stated the decree holder to be a partnership firm.

9. The contract, pursuant to which the disputes have arisen, also records M/s Pradeep Vinod Construction Co., as a partnership firm.

10. For the said reasons, the award referring to the decree holder as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is purely a typographical error and does not effect the merits of the award.”

2. Thereafter, a typographical error in the order of 02.08.2024 was modified on 14.08.2024.

3. The judgment debtor submits that this court under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot rectify/correct a typographic error made by an Arbitrator. The power of rectification lies only with the Arbitrator under section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was not preferred by the decree-holder and which could only be filed within 30 days from receipt of the arbitral award. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in S.P.S Rana v. MTNL and Digitally Signed Ors, 2010:DHC:182-DB. The operative portion reads as under:-

“9. Section 33 of the Act does not use the words “but not thereafter”. However, the period of 30 days is subject to “unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties”. In our view the said expression has to be read in the same manner as the expression “but not thereafter” was interpreted in M/s Popular Construction Co. (supra). Also, Section 32 inter alia provides for termination of the arbitral proceedings by the final award. Section 32 (3) lays down that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal shall terminate with the termination of the arbitral proceedings, subject inter alia to Section 33. It will thus be seen that unless a case is covered by Section 33, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is terminated. Thus, unless an application/petition under Section 33(1) of the Act is preferred within 30 days of the making of the award, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal terminates. Once the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal terminates, it is not possible to file the application / petition under Sectio