Sr. No.105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.03.2025 M/s Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited …Petitioner Versus M/s Genesis Engineering Company, through its Partner and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Aryan Chitra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral)

Under challenge in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the impugned orders dated December 11, 2024 (Annexure P-2) and February 3, 2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar. Vide the impugned orders, the learned Additional District Judge held that mere pendency of an application for correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to ‘the 1996 Act’) would not be a bar to the continuation of the execution proceedings.

2. The objection petition moved by the petitioner-judgment debtor was dismissed. The Manager concerned of the Standard Chartered Bank was directed to remit the decretal amount to the Executing Court. The objection of the petitioner-judgment debtor that due to the pendency of the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act, before the MSME Council, the execution proceedings should be stayed, was rejected.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since an application for correction and interpretation of the award was pending before the MSME Council since May 26, 2024, therefore no application for setting aside could be filed by the judgment-award debtor under Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act. He refers to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act to submit that time for limitation would run once the application under Section 33 was disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No(s). 20195/2017 dated July 10, 2017 “M/s Ved Parkash Mithal and Sons Vs. Union of India” to submit that the time would start to run under Section 34 (3) from the date on which the request under Section 33 was ‘disposed of’ by the Arbitral Tribunal.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

5. It is necessary to refer to Section 33 of the 1996 Act. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

“33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award. (1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties (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 arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award.

(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.”

XXX XXX XXX

6. It is also pertinent to refer to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act.

Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:-

“Section 34(3) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from m