SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Gyan Prakash Arya – Appellant
Versus
M/s Titan Industries Limited - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6876 of 2021
Decided On : 22-11-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 33, 34 and 36 – Appeal against arbitral award – In exercise of powers under Section 33 of 1996 Act, Arbitrator has modified his earlier award – Original award passed by Arbitrator was as per original claim made by respondent-original claimant and as per statement of claim – As such, subsequently allowing application under Section 33 of 1996 Act to modify original award in exercise of powers under Section 33 of 1996 Act is not sustainable – Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected – In present case, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical error in original award passed by Arbitrator – What was claimed by original claimant in statement of claim was awarded – Order passed by Arbitrator in application under Section 33 of 1996 Act is beyond scope and ambit of Section 33 of 1996 Act – Both, City Civil Court as well as High Court have committed grave error in dismissing arbitration suit/appeal under Sections 34 and 37 of 1996 Act respectively – Modified award passed by Arbitrator allowing application under Section 33 of 1996 Act cannot be sustained and same quashed and set aside and original award passed by Arbitrator restored. (Paras 10.1, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.7098 of 2018 (AA), by which High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Court dismissing arbitration suit (A.S. No. 12/2011) under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and confirming Arbitral Award dated 04.12.2010, further modified vide order dated 14.01.2011, original appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Original award passed by Arbitrator was as per the original claim made by the respondent in the statement of claim. Thereafter, in an application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act, respondent prayed to modify the award as per the market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold at Rs.20,747/- per 10 grams, instead of Rs.740 per gram and Arbitrator allowed said application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act and modified the original award dated 04.12.2010.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.7098 of 2018 (AA), by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ’1996 Act’) and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the XXIXth Additional City Civil & Sessions Court dismissing arbitration suit (A.S. No. 12/2011) under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and confirming the Arbitral Award dated 04.12.2010, further modified vide order dated 14.01.2011, the original appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant and the respondent herein had entered into an agreement dated 9.7.2003. A dispute arose between the parties relating to recovery of pure gold weighing 3648.80 grams said to have been in the possession of the appellant herein. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 9.7.2003. The High Court appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The respondent filed a claim petition before the learned arbitrator seeking the following reliefs:
(b) to direct the respondent to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.11,74,545.00 towards the interest amount due on the said amount of Rs.27,00,112.00 (value of pure gold weighing 3648.80 grams) from June 2003 till date of filing of this claim and further interest on the said amounts at 18% per annum during the pendency of these proceedings and until realization of the same;
(c) to direct the respondent to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.26,50,338.00 towards the loss which has been caused to the claimant on account of the defaults committed by the respondent; and
(d) award costs of the proceedings and such other and further reliefs which are just in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The learned arbitrator passed an award dated 04.12.2010 directing the appellant herein to return to the claimant/respondent within three months from the date of the award 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of gold at Rs.740 per gram from 24.07.2004 and up to the date of delivery of the quantity of gold. The learned arbitrator also passed an award that in the alternative, the appellant shall pay to the claimant/respondent within the said period of three months, the market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of the gold at Rs. 740 per gram from 24.07.2004 till the date of payment.
4. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act and requested to modify the award dated 04.12.2010 by correcting computational/arithmetical/clerical error by deleting “at Rs. 740 per gram as claimed in the claim statement” at page 14, second para, line 20 and to delete “Rs.740.00 per gram” at page 17, para 15(b), line 3, and substitute the same by “Rs.20,747/-per 10 grams” at page 17, para 15(b), line 3.
5. The learned arbitrator allowed the said application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act vide order dated 14.01.2011 and corrected the original award dated 04.12.2010 as under:
(b) in the alternative, the respondent shall pay to the claimant within the said period of three months the market value of 3,648.80 grams of pure gold at [Rs.2
Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, arbitral award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected.
The arbitral tribunal cannot modify its award on merits under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; it is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot modify an arbitral award through reappraisal of evidence or merits; it is restricted to grounds explicitly stated in the....
The learned Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in reviewing the Original Award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that under Section 34, a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to reappraise evidence in arbitral awards and may only modify awards for clear errors, not on merits.
The court upheld the limited scope of intervention in arbitration awards, emphasizing that arbitrators must adequately address counter-claims and provide reasons for decisions to avoid judicial misco....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.