Arbitral awards may be modified by courts to rectify computational errors, allowing adjustments even if such errors were not raised during initial proceedings, underscoring the limited, supervisory role of judicial review under Section 37.

JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37 , [ Section 37 .] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , [A&C Act.], the Appellant (Petitioner before the learned District Judge) assails the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’], whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the petition [hereinafter referred to as ‘ Section 34 Petition’] filed by the Appellant under Section 34 , [ Section 34 .] of the A&C Act and upheld the Award dated 05.06.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Award’] passed by the learned Arbitrator.

2. Herein, the Appellant contends that the learned District Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the patent illegality apparent on the face of the Award, inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator omitted to adjust the amount overpaid by the Appellant against the value of the work executed while determining the final awarded sum. However, readjustment of the amount overpaid was not pleaded before the learned District Judge.

3. Accordingly, the issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether an arithmetical or computational error in the Arbitral Award can be corrected in proceedings under Section 37 , notwithstanding that no such objection had been urged before the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 .

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

5. The Appellant, Respondent No. 2 and the Late Mr. Harvinder Singh, entered into an Agreement dated 10.04.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’] with Respondent No. 1/Claimant for the construction of their residential property bearing No. E-90, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject premises’].

6. Along with the Agreement, Respondent No. 1 furnished a provisional estimate for the construction of the subject premises in the sum of Rs. 62,14,000/-, which was agreed upon by the parties. In addition thereto, the specifications of the works to be undertaken by Respondent No. 1, along with the materials proposed to be utilized, were also provided. Further, as reflected in the programme schedule executed between the parties, the entire construction was required to be completed by Respondent No. 1 on or before 10.01.2011. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid documents, namely the Agreement, the provisional estimate, and the time schedule, stand admitted by both parties.

7. Pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid documents, Respondent No. 1 commenced the construction work at the subject premises. However, it is the case of the Appellant that Respondent No. 1 not only failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period but also abandoned the work midway, thereby compelling the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who are the legal representatives of the Late Mr. Harvinder Singh, to engage other contractors to complete the remaining works.

8. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 invoked arbitration proceedings against the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the joint owners of the subject premises, and asserted various claims in respect of the amounts allegedly payable to him for the purported works executed at the subject premi