Summary
The Court restored an original arbitral award and set aside a purported correction replacing its gold-valuation rate. The arbitrator had deliberately awarded the rate claimed in the statement of claim after considering the evidence. Substitution of a much higher rate altered the substantive award; it did not correct a computational or clerical error within Section 33. The courts below had wrongly upheld that modification.
Issues
- Whether replacing the consciously awarded gold-valuation rate with a higher market rate was permissible as a Section 33 correction.
Provisions considered
- Section 33(1)(a), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Correction of computational, clerical, typographical or similar errors did not authorize substantive replacement of the valuation consciously adopted in the award. (¶¶ 10.1, 11, 12)
Held
- The original award matched the claim and expressly adopted Rs.740 per gram in the absence of reliable proof of a higher rate. The later substitution of Rs.20,747 per ten grams therefore changed the merits rather than correcting an accidental mistake. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 10.1, 11, 12)
- The arbitrator exceeded the scope of the correction power, and the courts hearing the Section 34 challenge and Section 37 appeal erred in sustaining that modification. The original award, including its alternative relief structure, was restored. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court and City Civil Court orders and the arbitrator’s modification dated 14 January 2011 were set aside; the original award dated 4 December 2010 was restored. No costs.