GYAN PRAKASH ARYA versus M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 22-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
GYAN PRAKASH ARYA
v.
M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 6876 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.33 – Modification
of award – Scope and ambit – Original award passed considering
the claim made by the claimant as per its original claim and as per
the statement of the claim made – Subsequent application u/s.33
for modification of original award – Maintainability of – Held:
Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can
be modified and such errors only can be corrected – In the instant
case, what was claimed by the original claimant in the statement of
claim was awarded – Therefore,  order by the arbitrator in
application u/s.33 was beyond the scope and ambit of s.33 of the
Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The original award was passed considering the claim
made by the claimant as per its original claim and as per the
statement of the claim made and therefore subsequently allowing
the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act to modify the
original award in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the 1996
Act is not sustainable. In the instant case, it cannot be said that
there was any arithmetical and/or clerical error in the original
award passed by the arbitrator. What was claimed by the original
claimant in the statement of claim was awarded. Therefore, the
order passed by the arbitrator on an application filed under Section
33 of the 1996 Act and thereafter modifying the original award
cannot be sustained. [Para 12][7-D, E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6876 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No. 7098 of 2018 (AA).
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv., Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari,
Shashi Bhushan Nagar for M/s Devasa & Co., Advs. for the Appellant.
Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv., Vikram Hegde, Shravanth Arya Tandra,
Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Shantanu Lakhotia, N. S. Sriraj Gowda, Sharan
Balakrishna, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.7098 of 2018 (AA), by which the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein under
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘1996 Act’) and has confirmed the judgment and order
passed by the XXIXth Additional City Civil & Sessions Court dismissing
arbitration suit (A.S. No. 12/2011) under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and
confirming the Arbitral Award dated 04.12.2010, further modified vide
order dated 14.01.2011, the original appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
2. That the appellant and the respondent herein had entered into
an agreement dated 9.7.2003. A dispute arose between the parties relating
to recovery of pure gold weighing 3648.80 grams said to have been in
the possession of the appellant herein. The respondent invoked the
arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 9.7.2003. The High
Court appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate
the dispute between the parties. The respondent filed a claim petition
before the learned arbitrator seeking the following reliefs:
“a) to direct the respondent to deliver pure gold weighing 3648.80
grams to the claimant or in the alternative direct the respondent to
pay the claimant a sum of Rs.27,00,112.00 towards the cost of
pure gold weighing 3648.80 grams (calculated at the rate of Rs.740
per gram);
b) to direct the respondent to pay to the claimant a sum of
Rs.11,74,545.00 towards the interest amount due on the said
amount of Rs.27,00,112.00 (value of pure gold weighing 3648.80
grams) from June 2003 till date of filing of this claim and further
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
interest on the said amounts at 18% per annum during the pendency
of these proceedings and until realization of the same;
c) to direct the respondent to pay to the claimant a sum of
Rs.26,50,338.00 towards the loss which has been caused to the
claimant on account of the defaults committed by the respondent;
and
d) award costs of the proceedings and such other and further
reliefs which are just in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The learned arbitrator passed an award dated 04.1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.