The limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act commences from the date when the request under Section 33 of the Act is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The Arbitral Tribunal published an award on August 05, 2014. It was received by the respondent on a date not known because neither counsel could through light thereon, but certainly towards the end of August 2014, because both parties filed applications under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) somewhere towards the end of the month, because the Section envisages clerical, typographic, computation errors and errors of the kind being made; probably because humans are prone to commit unintentional errors. Further, because humans are prone to errors of language, the provision envisages a correction thereof, inasmuch as parties may request the Arbitral Tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.

2. On September 13, 2014, the Arbitral Tribunal disposed of the request of both sides under Section 33 of the Act. The order reads as under:-

“1. We have heard the learned advocates of both the parties with reference to their application under Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. So far as the clerical errors pointed out in the claimants application Annexure “A” are concerned, they are ordered to be carried out but so far as the claimants request to change the figure of Rs.Rs.08 crore to Rs.18,12,43,061 is concerned, the same is rejected. The figure of Rs.6.95 crore is concerned, the same is an arithmetical error and same should be revised to Rs.7.95 crore.

3. Consequently, the award will now be Rs.9.0 crore. This change will be effected in the award.

4. So far as the NHAI request to clarify the basis for the award is concerned, we see no need to do so. The request is therefore rejected.

5. The fees of the arbitration tribunal will be paid by both sides equally within two weeks.

6. Corrected copy of the award will be circulated within two weeks.

7. This dispose off the request of both sides made under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

3. On February 4, 2015, the respondent filed objections to the award dated August 05, 2014, as corrected vide order dated September 13, 2014, taking the stand that pursuant to the order dated September 13, 2014 the amended award was received by it on November 07, 2014, and thus the period of limitation of three months within which objections could be filed, would expire on February 07, 2015. The appellant took the stand that for purpose of computing limitation, the date when the order dated September 13, 2014 was passed would be the date wherefrom limitation would commence.

4. The topic of discussion before the learned Single Judge therefore became sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act. Since in a debate, the topic on which the debate has to take place needs to be noted, we straightaway reproduce Sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act. It reads as under:-

“34. (1) .....

(2) ......

(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 making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”

5. Since we have to decide who has won the debate, and unlike debates outside Courts where the Judges have to simply give marks and she who obtains more marks is declared the winner, we have to give reasons as to why a party is declared the winner, we have to note the rival viewpoints projected, for and against the motion.

6. The argument of the appellant is that the language of Sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act is plain and clear, and since it is the duty of an interpreter to arrive at the legal mea