An Analysis of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Part I

While studying Law of Arbitration in India, I found following points to be of particular significance in understanding the length and the breadth of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Given below are some of my key observations in this respect.

Introduction

Section 33 deals with correction and interpretation of arbitral awards as also the additional awards that can be requested by the parties from the Arbitrator. Section 33 is a lengthy one and has seven sub-sections. However, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I shall discuss the related ones together.

Section 33 (1) (a)

This is one of the most important sub-sections of Section 33. It states that:

“Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties, 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.”

Thus we see that a time limitation of thirty days has been given under this sub-section. Any party who is not satisfied with the Arbitral Award on the grounds of computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature, may request the Arbitrator to correct them. This seems quite simple. However, there are many creative ways in which this sub-section can be used.

For instance, the phrase ‘computation errors’ could include not only calculation or arithmetical errors but also the methods of calculation and computation. ‘Computation’ has wider length and breadth than ‘calculation’. ‘Calculation’ is a process that strictly involves numbers whereas ‘computation’ involves not only numbers but also specific rules through which a correct result is to be arrived at. Thus the legislature wanted to include methods of calculation and computation as well. Had this not been the intention of the legislature, the legislature would have used a simpler term of narrower magnitude like ‘calculation’ whereas the legislature unequivocally and unmistakeably used the phrase “computation errors”. This clearly signifies that errors in methods of computation and other such errors are covered under Section 33 (1). This is true also because of presence of the phrase “or any other errors of a similar nature”. It helps in broadening the scope of errors covered under Section 33 (1) (a).

Also, Prior Notice to the other party or obtaining its consent is not mandatory under Section 33 (1) (a). The other party has to be merely informed about moving of an Application under this sub-section.

Section 33 (1) (b)

Section 33 (1) (b) states that:

“Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties, 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.”

On the other hand, obtaining of the consent from the other party seems to be obligatory under Section 33 (1) (b). Section 33 (1) (b) does not have a lot of practical significance as it seldom happens that both the parties are unsatisfied with Arbitral Award or some part of it. Arbitral Award are mostly one-sided, even though not as one sided as Court Judgments are. Hence, it becomes difficult to invoke Section 33 (1) (b) for any of the parties as the other party with most surely not agree to the proposition. I think the utility of Section 33 (1) (b) lies in the fact that, if some blunder or some grave error in interpretation has been committed by the Arbitral Tribunal, then it acts as a tool in hands of both the parties to ask the Arbitral Tribunal to correct such error.

The rest of the sub-sections and contents of Section 33 shall be dealt with in the next post.