This article is written by Bhanvi Juvekar and further updated by Arnisha Das. This article provides a clause wise explanation of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which deals with the post award remedies of correction and interpretation of arbitral awards and additional awards along with the case laws.

Table of Contents

Introduction                                                                                       

With thousands of cases under trial in the Indian legal system, parties often opt for out of court settlement procedures, also known as ‘alternative dispute resolution’ (ADR). It makes the dispute resolution process much easier and less time-consuming. Arbitration is one such dispute resolution process, which is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When a matter is resolved through arbitration, an arbitrator grants an arbitral award, i.e., the final decision. While pronouncing such an arbitral award, circumstances may arise where certain errors take place which affect the final decision. It is crucial to rectify these errors first, before the execution of the final award, this is where Section 33 of the Act comes into play.

Section 33 of the Act encompasses those circumstances where an arbitral award made by the arbitral tribunal comes across an error which disparages the overall impact of the decision. In this article, we shall discuss in detail the provision pertaining to the correction and interpretation of the arbitral award, i.e., Section 33 along with relevant case laws. Before that, let us first understand in brief the meaning of ‘arbitral award.’                                                                                                                      

Download Now

What is an arbitral award

In simple language, the decision given by the arbitrator or by the arbitral tribunal is called an ‘arbitral award’. The term has not been defined in the Act, however, Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, mentions an arbitral award as which includes an interim award. An arbitral award is any decision of an arbitral tribunal which is final and binding on the parties and has the same enforceability as a court’s decision.  

While an award passed by an arbitrator can be challenged under Section 34 when it violates certain precepts of the Act, however, sometimes the award passed contains some errors, that may relate to the party description or some other errors, in such cases the interested party can file an application under Section 33 of the Act for correction and interpretation of the award.                                                                             

Some of the common kinds of mistakes that may occur are incorrect names of the parties, calculation damages, omission of any provision that was intended in the proceeding, etc. Now, let’s take a look at how one can handle challenges if any error has occurred by the arbitral tribunal, or if the party wishes to seek an interpretation of the award passed.

Correction and interpretation of arbitral award  

Correction and interpretation of an arbitral award is a post-award process.  The archetype of arbitration law in India is based on the UNCITRAL model law (The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law). Section 33 of the Act, which relates to the correction and interpretation of the award has also been taken from here. 

Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is the statutory provision that allows for correction and interpretation of an award. This section categorically states that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to correct any errors and interpret his award. Furthermore, if necessary, an arbitrator may even change or amend the core of the award passed.

These errors are more often simple human errors. It can without a doubt bring about significant repercussions for any party engaged in the arbitral process. There are mixed consequences such as disappointment, enforcement issues, investing time, etc. However, these corrections or interpretations cannot go beyond reforming the clerical or typographical errors in the arbitral award. In the corresponding section of the previous arbitration law, i.e., Section 13(d) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old Act), it is stated that the errors are rigidly limited to clerical mistakes arising from ‘accidental slip or omission’.      

Many other countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have a similar provision to aid parties and to rectify any mistakes that might have come round. For example, Section 57 of the English Arbitration Act 1996, provides that a tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, correct an award to “remove any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission or clarify or remove any ambiguity in the award”.  

The Supreme Court in its many decisions has held that an award can only be altered for obvious reasons and, not ethically, the main decision. In Union of India vs. Jay Narayan Misra (1970), the issue was that the arbitrator passed a decision in favour of the respondent to indemnify him the dues as per the contract by the petitioner and also the security deposit, which was a question not debated in the tribunal. The court held it to be a mistake committed by the tribunal and separate from the rest of the award. It is pertinent to note that this case dealt with the old Arbitration Act, of 1940. 

It is to be noted that the request for correction or interpretation, with notice to the other party, of an award does not reopen the proceedings. The evidence and arguments, which have already been verified, interpreted and understood are not repeated. A similar provision to Section 33 of the Act is Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which also empowers the courts to amend any mistake or error in a judgement at the request of any party or on its own without reinstituting the whole process. 

Clause-wise explanation of Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

This sub-section states that any party can apply to the tribunal within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, with notice to the other party, unless another time period has been agreed upon by the parties, to request the correction of any computation, clerical or typographical or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award;  

Also, a party, with agreement with the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award to reach more clarity.                                    

A limitation period of thirty days is kept as a timeline for submitting an application under this provision. After the completion of 30 days, no party can request any correction or interpretation of awards. 

It is also important to notice that one party who wants to approach the arbitration tribunal under Section 33 does not need the consent of the other party. It is only important that the other party is notified if any such proceeding is being applied for by the other party.

Section 33(1)(a): This clause includes any basic human error that might occur during the drafting of the award. Drafting errors can be corrected easily. This is an important provision because if such errors are ignored then they can lead to a change in the meaning of the ruling and can stir trouble during enforcement.

The language of the statutes uses the word ‘computational errors’. On the face of it, it can mean that errors related to calculation and arithmetic are being considered. However, the language is such that its meaning can be extended to include the methods that are used to carry out calculations. In the case of Chouthmal Jivraj Ji Poddar vs. Ramchandra Jivrajjee Poddar (1955), the Supreme Court of India held that an arbitrator becomes ‘functus officio’ after giving his award and cannot change it except any clerical mistake or error arising from ‘any accidental slip or omission’.                                                                       

This way, the scope of the statute can be expanded because calculation would be restricted to include only numbers, but computation can comprise the methods and steps/procedures used to arrive at those numbers.

Clause (b): This clause mentions the interpretation of an arbitral award. The only problem that is faced by parties is that there are very few situations when both parties have an issue with the meaning conveyed by the arbitral award. It creates problems if one party agrees and the other party does not.  

In cases where both parties agree, it can be used for an interpretation conveying the clear meaning of the arbitral award for better enforcement of the same.

Section 33(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

This sub-section provides a time frame for the arbitrator to pass the correction or interpretation of the award as requested under section 33(1). In case, the request is granted by the arbitral tribunal, it has to provide the interpretation within thirty days of receiving the receipt of the request. The interpretation becomes part of the arbitral award. An additional award is not passed in this case.

Section 33(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

This sub-section clarifies that correction and interpretation can take place if the arbitral tribunal can correct the mistakes related to the categories mentioned under sub-section (1) of Section 33. 

Request for additional arbitral award under Section 33

Section 33(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

This sub-section states that:

The arbitral tribunal, upon the request made by one of the parties, with notice to the other, can make an additional arbitral award within thirty days after receiving it from the parties. The arbitral award would be based on those claims presented in the proceedings but excluded from the final award. 

In situations where a part of the proceedings has been left out, an additional award is given by the arbitration tribunal to make up for that loss. The additional award is supposed to have corrected the mistake by including the missed part of the award.                                           

The main difference to be noted in a correction/interpretation given and an additional award is that: 

  • The correction and interpretation that is made merge with the original award. This is because there are only calculative or clerical changes to be incorporated.
  • An additional award by its name itself implies that another award is granted. This award does not merge with the original award.

The ambit and scope of sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was considered by the Supreme Court in Mcdermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others (2006), and it was held as follows: 

Sub-section (4) empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to make additional arbitral awards in respect of claims already presented to the Tribunal in the arbitral proceedings but omitted by the Arbitral Tribunal provided:

  • There is no contrary agreement between parties to the reference;
  • A party to the reference, with notice to the other party to the reference, requests the arbitral tribunal to make the additional award;
  • Such a request is made within 30 days from the receipt of the arbitral award;

Granting of additional award by the tribunal under Section 33 

Section 33(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996    

The sub-section provides that if the tribunal finds the request of making another arbitral award valid, it shall proceed to make a new award, which is apart from the original award within sixty days from the date of such request being made.                                                                              

In this scenario, the parties are granted some access to get the review of the award for additional claims. Unlike official errors as administered in the application under sub-section (1), this application complements or provides a source of clarity to the decisions adopted in the arbitration proceedings, which were not included in the previous arbitral award. 

Section 33(6) gives the power to the tribunal to extend the time period for the scrutiny, interpretation and for making of an additional arbitral award as mentioned under sub-section 2 and sub-section 5 of the provision respectively.                                                                        

Further, under Section 33(7), it is mentioned that Section 31 of the Act shall apply to all the corrections, interpretations and additional awards as provided under this Section.                                                                                           

Only clerical or arithmetical errors could be corrected

Insofar as rectifying the original arbitral award is concerned, the same can be modified as far as only clerical or arithmetical errors come around as per Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 33 spells out the guidelines for an arbitral tribunal in the act of rectification of the original award, only confined to typographical, computational or logical conflicts in other parts. 

Any such errors can be challenged by either party, with notice to the other party, within thirty days from the date of granting of such award. If the error does not highlight any clerical or arithmetical error, it must not go beyond the scope of power of the tribunal under this Section.    

In the case mentioned below, the Supreme Court has interpreted the core difference between amending a clerical or arithmetical error and modifying the central idea of an award by a tribunal. 

Gyan Prakash Arya vs. M/S Titan Industries Limited (2021) 

Facts of the case 

The case revolves around an agreement entered into by the appellant Gyan Prakash Arya and the claimant/respondent M/s Titan Industries Ltd. on 09.07.2003. The matter arose with regard to the demand of unadulterated gold of 3648.80 grams in the possession of the appellant by the respondent. The claimant/respondent decided to invoke the arbitration clause for resolving the dispute by means of a sole arbitrator appointed by the Karnataka High Court. After hearing the statement of claim of the respondent in the proceedings, the arbitrator passed an award on 04.12.2010. The award directed as follows:

“(i) The appellant shall return to the respondent within three months from the date of the award 3648.80 grams of unadulterated gold as well as an interest of 18% per annum computing the value of the gold at 740 rupees per gram from 24.07.2004. 

(ii) Alternatively, the appellant can give the respondent the market price of 3648.80 grams of gold and an interest of 18% per annum computing the value of gold at Rs. 740 per gram from 24.07.2004.”  

Now, the respondent challenged the award on the grounds of:

  • Correction of the clerical or arithmetical error of the award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • The change of the statement ‘at Rs. 740 per gram’ and use as a replacement ‘Rs. 20,747 per 10 grams’ aligned with the prevailing market rate of gold.  
  • Corresponding to this, the learned arbitrator made the Amendment by deleting the phrase at “Rs. 740 per gram”  and substituting it with “at Rs. 20,747 per 10 grams” of the original award on 14.01.2011.

Feeling wronged or dissatisfied with the outcome of the arbitral award, the appellant filed a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the City Civil Court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant sought an appeal under Section 37 of the Act in the Karnataka High Court aggrieved by the decision. However, the appeal was also dismissed.   

Finally, the appellant took the resort of an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. After carefully considering all the facts, the Supreme Court found that there was no computational/arithmetical/clerical error as found under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues Raised  

Whether the City Civil Court and the Karnataka High Court made an error in adjudicating that the arbitral tribunal was right in facilitating an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?   

Judgement of the case

The Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and M.R. Shah pronounced that the request made in the application under Section 33 to the arbitral tribunal with regards to modifying ‘at 740 per gram’ with ‘20,747 per 10 grams’ was in reality a mistake conducted by the esteemed tribunal. The modification did not encompass any typographical or clerical or computational error which makes it qualified under Section 33 of the Act. On the contrary, it produces a different discovery that was not under the jurisdiction of the tribunal at the time of passing such an award. 

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the original award, which was later modified by the arbitral tribunal through the application of the respondent under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was clearly beyond the ‘scope and ambit’ of the provision. There was no arithmetical/clerical error incurred in the actual claim made by the respondent in the award, rather the subsequent award was prosecuted with a different claim altogether from the merits of the original award. Thus, the award is not sustainable as per the procedure of law. 

On the other hand, the counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the original award remained unaltered which affirmed the return of the gold as the primary relief granted to the claimant. The second award was an alternative award only if the appellant is unable to discharge the earlier.  

The Court found that the tribunal had transcended its power conferred under the tenets of this provision. Also it adjudicated that both the City Civil Court and the Karnataka High Court had made a ‘grave error’ in dismissing the suit and appeal filed under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 respectively.      

Analysis of the case 

The case provided a pattern of understanding the clerical/arithmetical error conducted in an arbitration award which can be modified under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Although the Apex Court restored the original award, it set aside the modification of the award for not satisfying the criteria of the Section. 

It emphasises there must be clear delineation of the resolution carried off during the ongoing proceedings of an arbitral tribunal. Also, any appeal in the second instance, it should be analysed thoroughly to understand the intent of law by the courts of law. It is well-debated that there is often deviation from the actual intent of a proceeding, which can itself delay the procedure. 

Thus, the damage as well as the failure to understand the significance of any party’s argument often creates difficulties and provides firmness in the procedure. All the factual instances should be properly examined and the evidence should be probed to overcome the problems in the best way.    

Relation between Section 33 and Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996                   

There is often uncertainty about the analogy between Section 33 and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Along with providing the guidelines for correction or interpretation of an arbitral tribunal, Section 33 also gives leeway to the parties to produce their grievance to the court outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Section 34 outlines the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award at the occurrence of any inconsistency with the public policy or the absolute rule of law.

On careful reading of both the sections together, one can say that when a party is not satisfied with the arbitral award granted then they move to correct and interpret the award or try to acquire an additional award. However, the party may find these means to be insufficient. In such cases, the parties move an application under Section 34 to set aside the award- which means, to invalidate the granted award. 

Section 34 prohibits any other recourse of challenging an arbitral award other than the one provided in this Section. Under Section 34(3), a party cannot file for setting aside the award after three months have passed from the day that a request under Section 33 was disposed of. This is subject to the satisfaction of the court- the court should be convinced that such an application was disposed of on the basis of reasonable grounds. 

For example, If an arbitral award contains a simple calculation error, a party can ask the tribunal to rectify it under Section 33. On the other hand, if the award is deemed fundamentally flawed due to a major problem of legal misinterpretation, a party may need to file an application to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Act. 

Important cases on Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

M/S Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons vs. Union of India (2018)

Facts of the case 

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 asserts the setting aside of an arbitral award by a court within three months from the receipt of the arbitral award by the applicant. In case, the court is satisfied that the applicant was in delay for a sufficient cause, he may provide a further period of thirty days for granting of the application for disposing of such a decision. The respondent in this case received the arbitral award on 07.11.2015. It was granted on 30.10.2015 by the arbitral tribunal. 

Following that, the respondent made applications under Section 33 of the Act for correction of the aforesaid award on 16.11.2015 and 20.11.2025 respectively. However, both of these applications were dismissed without any variation on 14.12.2015. 

Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 34 on 11.03.2016 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 30.05.2017 stating to be lapsed of the legitimate span of filing such an application in court. 

Next, the Delhi High Court heard the application 10.07.2017 and reversed the order of the Additional District Judge claiming that it was within the purview of Section 34 as the interval of time should be calculated between the disposal of such application under Section 33 and the filing of objection under Section 34 of the Act.

Aggrieved by such an order, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India through a special leave petition on 08.08.2018. 

Chronological highlights of M/S Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons case

  • The arbitral award was granted on 30.10.2015.
  • The respondent received the award on 07.11.2015.
  • The respondent made the applications under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the arbitral tribunal on 16.11.2015 and 20.11.2015.
  • Both the applications were dismissed for non-compliance on 14.12.2015.
  • The respondent filed an application under 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 11.03.2016 in a court.
  • The Additional District Judge of the court dismissed that application exceeding time.
  • The respondent filed before the Single Judge of the High Court, Delhi and the court granted such application for being within time.
  • The Supreme Court heard the appeal by the petitioners on 08.08.2018.
  • The petition was dismissed, reinstating the proposition of the Delhi High Court.

Issues raised 

Was the High Court correct in adjudicating the fact that the application was allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Judgement of the case

After hearing all facts and evidence presented by the parties and precedent analysis, the honourable Supreme Court dismissed the petition allowing the respondents to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. 

The arguments from the petitioners was that Section 34 in harmony with Section 33 of the Act signifies that unless an award is accurately modified or altered by the arbitral tribunal, it becomes invalid to consider the date as the limitation period for moving an application to the court under Section 34. 

For this, the petitioner had relied on a precedent of Amit Suryakant Lunavat vs. Kotak Securities (2010), where the honourable Court adjudged that if the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is rejected by the arbitral tribunal, the period for counting fresh application would stay unchanged or be the same as the date of the receipt of the arbitral award. 

Otherwise, in case of modification or correction of the award, the date of passing such a new award would be considered the start of the limitation period for filing the application. 

In light of all the circumstances, the court pointed out that irrespective of the award being altered by the application under Section 33 of the Act before the tribunal, it will be just and proper to consider that the award is ‘disposed of’ for the very fact that was altered or dismissed. 

The award being granted after the disposal of the arbitral award under Section 33 of the Act would suffice the limitation period for appealing in a court for annulling the award under Section 34 of the Act. 

Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Man Industries (India) Ltd. (2024) 

Facts of the case

In this case, a formal contract was signed between the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the appellant and M/s. Man Industries for a tender of mild steel pipes procurement under the ‘Gujarat Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project’ funded by the Asian Development Bank. The contract termed, among other things, that there would be 10% advance payment of the contract before fulfilling the contract and any delay done by the contractor would be compensated with due interest as a penalty to the Board. Now, the main reasons behind the dispute are:

  • There was a delay in releasing such payment from the appellant board. 
  • Aggravating the situation, the contract execution was delayed due to unprecedented rain obstructing the manufacturing work of pipes to be supplied.
  • The respondent filed to the appellate board to extend the days for deliverables and also exempt the respondent of the penalty for failing the duty caused by natural calamity and the consecutive interest incurring from it. 
  • The appellant took recognition of the matter but did not release the respondent from the obligation of compensating the board, resulting in an extension of delivery only up to 47 days. 
  • Aggrieved, the respondent sought an arbitration tribunal consisting of sole arbitrators as in the arbitration clause.
  • The tribunal decided that respondent will obtain 87 days in delivery of the manufacturing work of pipes and the balance amount to be refunded by the appellant to the respondent. 
  • After that, the respondent filed under Section 33 to the tribunal and presented supporting documents to amend the quantum of the award. 
  • A notice was also sent to the claimant. Now, the tribunal, considering the documents made to clarify the recovery, passed the award to make their recovery and refund the balance amount to the respondent. 
  • The appellant applied under Section 34 to set aside the award in the commercial court, but the same was dismissed. 
  • Lastly, the appellant preferred an appeal in the Gujarat High Court challenging the order of the commercial court. 

Issue

Is the additional award liable to be set aside when the two parties were not in conformity?

Judgement

The appellants argued that the learned arbitrator had provided the arbitral award beyond the jurisdiction granted under Section 33 of the Act. The respondent has made the calculations based on different materials of which the appellants were not notified. Further, they claimed that the award under Section 33(4) was not made within sixty days, which makes the away null and void. 

The respondents argued that the learned arbitrator was well within the jurisdiction to make such an award and the appellants were informed priorly and they attended the proper proceedings that was held to render the award.

The Gujarat High Court, after making due observation of the evidence, held that the arbitrator did not infringe the boundary in Section 33 as there can be specific interpretation and clarification given in deciding the quantum of amount. Further, the point made by the appellants that the award violated the provision of an additional award under Section 33(4) was not defensible as the award was made under Section 33(1) (b) of the Act. Thus, there were no merits in challenging such an award and hence, the appeal stood dismissed.

Conclusion

Section 33 is one of the vital provisions of the Act, that makes the interested parties in an arbitration exempted from any involuntary errors in the result of the arbitration settlement. However, the court in many cases has clarified that it would not entertain any facts other than clerical, typographical or arithmetic errors while hearing any matters under this section. Hence, any applicant must align with the grounds as justified in the provision while making any claim or challenging the award in any other jurisdiction.  

To avoid further argument on this point, there is appropriate duration and measures to be followed so that the parties do not suffer from any wastage of time and money in the post-arbitral proceedings. There is also scope for the tribunal to take its own initiative to amend such errors to make the process fast and smooth.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is there any limitation for the correction of an arbitral award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

According to Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a party can appeal to the tribunal for correction of an arbitral award within thirty days from the granting of such an award. 

What does the UNCITRAL Model say about the correction of arbitral awards?

According to UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, any party aggrieved by an award can request the arbitral tribunal under Section 33 to identify or interpret any specific part or modify any clerical/typographical/computational error in the award within thirty days after granting it. 

Can a party appeal under Section 34 in court for the correction or interpretation of an award?

Under Section 34, the Apex Court has itself adjudged in many cases that the scope of application of this provision is very limited. Thus, the court does use Section 34 to change the substance of an award; the only way to address interpretation or correction would be to approach the arbitral tribunal itself, if applicable, through a request for clarification or additional award. 

What kind of matters come under the ambit of an arbitral tribunal?

Matters that are arbitrable under the arbitral tribunal are of non-criminal nature. Usually, the disputes can be resolved through mutual solutions with the supervision of the arbitral tribunal. These can include: 

  • Commercial disputes
  • Civil disputes including matrimonial, insolvency, and tortious claims 
  • Liquidated damages;  
  • Any declaration or determination upon a disputed matter; 
  • Specific performance of a contract and for rectification; or for
  • Guardianship matters 
  • Tenancy and eviction disputes 
  • Labour and industrial disputes, etc.

What are the essentials of an arbitral award?

The essentials of an arbitral award are the grounds on which final execution of an arbitral award depends. Section 31 of the Act proclaims an arbitral award to be valid only if it contains the following essential elements: 

  • The award shall be in writing;
  • The award shall be signed by all the members of the arbitral tribunal;
  • The rationale of the should be detailed; 
  • Date and place of arbitration should be mentioned on the award;
  • A signed copy of the award should be sent to both parties. It should be signed by the arbitrator or the majority of the arbitrators of the tribunal.  

In many instances, where an interim award is necessary, the arbitral tribunal can provide such an award as per sub-section (6) of Section 33 of the Act. During the arbitral proceedings, the tribunal may decide to make such an award to refer it for the final award later. 

On what grounds can a court accept a challenge under Section 34 of the Act?

The court can accept an application to give its determination under Section 34 of the Act when the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award is in question. When there are no other circumstances, the court may look into the merits of the case or dismiss such application.

When does an arbitrator become ‘functus officio’?

The legal phrase ‘functus officio’ refers to an official who has performed, completed, or discharged his duty. When the official has discharged his duty, he does not have further say in the matter. Once an arbitration matter ends and the award has been declared by the arbitrator, he becomes the functus officio.

References 

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here