Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.—
(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties—
(a) 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;
(b) 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.
(2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award.
(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.
(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other party, may request, within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award.
(5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (4) to be justified, it shall make the additional arbitral award within sixty days from the receipt of such request.
(6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5).
(7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional arbitral award made under this section.
It is seen that by express agreement between the parties, arbitrability of the claim for refund of the hire charges was referred to arbitration and T came to be appointed as arbitrator and entered upon that reference. But when claim was made, he enlarged the dispute unilaterally without there being any agreement by the appellant. Infact they objected to the enlargement of the scope of the arbitration. Since arbitrator went on adjudicating the disputes, they were left with no option but to participate in the proceedings as the claims were pressed for and parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Therefore, it did not amount to acquiescence. The arbitrator went out of their way to declare that whatever amount in addition was due from respondent No. 1 upon the bahikhatta account was remitted having regard to his labour and poverty and the whole unspecified amount found due against respondent No. 2 was remitted in full in view of his labour and poverty. It was contended that the award was decided outside the authority of the arbitrators. It was held that the arbitrators had clearly misdirected themselves and had exceeded the scope of their authority and the award was, therefore, set aside; Union of India v. G.S. Atwal & Co., AIR 1996 SC 2965.