Typographical Error In Title Of Arbitral Award Can Be Corrected Beyond 30 Days If Caused By Tribunal's Mistake: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that a clerical or typographical error in the title of an arbitral award can be corrected even after 30 day limitation period provided under section 33 of the Arbitration Act if the mistake originated from the tribunal itself and not from the parties. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an appeal filed by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), which had challenged a Single Judge's order allowing the correction of a misnomer in the title of an arbitral award. “It would be onerous and absurd to deprive a party of a lawful decree and the benefits contained therein merely for the reason that the court or arbitral tribunal itself has committed an error of such a nature,” the Bench observed. The dispute arose out of a contract between IHBAS and MI2C Securities and Facilities Pvt. Ltd. for security and facility management services. The tribunal passed an award in favor of the contractor. However, the Tribunal mentioned the name of the respondent incorrectly in the title of the award. The contractor filed an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act seeking to rectify this defect but the application was dismissed holding that it was filed beyond 30 days limitation period. The contractor challenged the order before the High Court under section 34. The Single Judge allowed the petition directing correction of the name. IHBAS, aggrieved by this order, preferred the present appeal under Section 37. IHBAS submitted that the timeline provided under section 33 of the Arbitration Act was mandatory and could not be extended under any circumstances. It was further submitted that the respondent's application was barred by time as it had been filed beyond 30 days time limit. Per contra, MI2C Securities and Facilities Pvt. Ltd submitted that the mistake was purely clerical having occurred on the part of the arbitral tribunal. It was further that same name was used throughout the proceedings, therefore the error did not relate to merits of the case but was merely a typographical error. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding identity of the respondent. The same name “M/s MI2C Securities and Facilities Pvt. Ltd.” had been used through the proceedings. It further held that the error was made by the tribunal, not by the parties thereby attracting a latin maxim “Actus curiae neminem gravabit” — an act of the court shall prejudice no one, in the present case. It held that “in our considered opinion, the said error occurred at the end of the arbitral tribunal, and as such could not be deemed to be an error in the award in the sense requiring correction by any of the parties. In fact, according to us, correction of the said error would fall within the Latin maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” which means an act of a Court can prejudice no one.” The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Neeraj Kumar Sainy where it was held that “there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: Actus curiae neminem gravabit .” “It would be unfair to deprive a party of the lawful benefits of an award due to a mere typographical error committed by the tribunal,” the Court said. The court further observed that although section 33 of the Arbitration Act provides a strict time limit of 90 days within which the mistake has to be corrected, in exceptional circumstances strict timeline may be relaxed. “We are not laying down a proposition that the limitation in Section 33(1) must always be relaxed, but in exceptional cases like the present one—where the mistake emanates from the tribunal itself—the rigours may be relaxed,” the court said. The court further observed that the correction in the title did not alter the substance of the award or affect the rights and obligations of the parties. It merely ensured that the record represented the correct identity of the successful claimant. On maintainability, the court held that an order passed under section 33 of the Arbitration Act is deemed an additional award, therefore such an award is amenable to section 34. “Any order passed under Section 33 of the Act is deemed to be an additional award, and a challenge or correction thereto would surely fall within the ambit of Section 34,” the Bench held. Accordingly, the court dismissed the present appeal holding that typographical error committed by the arbitral tribunal can be corrected even after 30 day limit provided under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. Case Title: INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES...

Typographical Error In Title Of Arbitral Award Can Be Corrected Beyond 30 Days If Caused By Tribunal's Mistake: Delhi High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags