This Writ Petition is filed by the Decree holder in Execution

No.3835 of 2019 on the file of LXXXV Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge at Bangalore, allowing the memo dated 16^th

January, 2020 filed by the judgment debtor.

2. Facts in nutshell are that, the petitioner had entered

into an agreement No.001/2011-12 dated 03^rd August, 2011 for

execution of <Construction of Community Centres at thirteen

locations under Phase-2 and work at the identified slums in

Bengaluru City=. The total amount for the project was

Rs.6,41,58,238/- and the time stipulated to complete the project

was twelve months. However, for the reasons best known to the

parties, the project was not completed within the stipulated

period and as such the respondent herein refuted the claims

made by the petitioner on account of the delay in execution of

work and in that view of the matter the petitioner invoked

3

arbitration clause in the agreement dated 03^rd August, 2011. A

Sole Arbitrator was appointed on 23^rd October, 2017 for

adjudication of dispute between the parties. The Arbitral

Tribunal, by award dated 08^th April, 2019, ordered that the

Decree holder/petitioner is entitled for Rs.63,97,750/- with

further simple interest at the rate of Rs.15.80% (SBI PLR + 2%)

from 09^th April, 2016 till realisation. The counter claim filed by

the respondent was rejected by the learned Arbitrator.

Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed Execution Petition

No.3835 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court to execute the

award made by the learned Arbitrator. In the Execution

Proceedings the judgment debtor filed Memos dated 16^th

January, 2020 and 12^th December, 2019; and the memo of

calculation filed by the Decree holder on 16^th January, 2020.

The trial Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and allowed the memo dated 16^th January, 2020 filed by

the judgment debtor/respondent and as such, modified the

award.

Feeling

aggrieved

by

the

same,

the

Decree

holder/petitioner herein has presented this petition.

4

3. Sri Samaksh Sood, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the award at

Annexure-B made by the learned Arbitrator and also Section 33

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,

hereinafter referred to as "Act=). He submitted that the

Executing Court has no jurisdiction to correct the award made by

the learned Arbitrator and therefore, he places reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of S.P.S.

RANA v. MTNL AND OTHERS decided on 14^th January, 2010; in

the case of DO-IT COMPUTER JV A v. THE MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI reported in 2018 SCC

ONLINE Bom.1192; and in the case of UNION OF INDIA v.

POPULAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY reported in (2001)8 SCC

470. Placing reliance on the above judgments, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner

nor the respondent have filed an application under Section 33 of

the Act and therefore the impugned order passed by the

Executing Court modifying the award requires interference in this

Writ Petition.

5

4. Respondents are served remained absent.

5. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner I have carefully examined

the finding recorded by he trial Court in the impugned order

dated 18^th February, 2021. Section 33 of the Act provides as

under:

<33. Correction and interpretation of award;

additional award.4

(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral

award, unless another period of time has been agreed

upon by the parties4

(a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request

the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors,

any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of

a similar nature occurring in the award;

(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the

other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an

interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.

(2) If the arbi