LexNORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus M/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1581 : 2024 INSC 988 North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/s S.A. Builders Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2024) 17 December 2024 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Arbitrator had become functus officio after passing of the award dated 16.12.1997 and had no jurisdiction to issue the clarification dated 15.03.2005. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 and s.33(1) (a) – Appellant contended that the Arbitrator had become functus officio and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the clarification: Held: The interpretation given to Section 33(1) of the 1996 Act and on a cumulative assessment of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the clarification sought for and issued by the Arbitrator would be covered by the expression unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties appearing in Section 33 (1) of the 1996 Act – This is a case where court had permitted the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitrator beyond the initial period of 30 days whereafter the appellant fully participated in the clarificatory proceeding – Therefore, the present case would be covered by the above expression – In the circumstances, contention of the appellant that the Arbitrator had become functus officio and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the clarification cannot be accepted and is thus rejected – That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that the interest portion is covered by the contract agreement between the parties – In the absence thereof, Section 31(7)(a) as well as Section 31(7)(b) of the 1996 Act would have their full effect – The sum awarded would mean the principal amount plus the interest awarded from the date of cause of action upto the date of the award – Thereafter, as per Section 31(7)(b) of the 1996 Act, the sum (principal plus interest) would carry interest * Author 1582 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports @ 18% from the date of the award to the date of payment – This would be consistent with the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. [Paras 59, 60] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.33(1) – Correction and interpretation of award; additional award: Held: As per sub-Section (1), within 30 days from the date of receipt of the arbitral award, 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 – Further, if the parties agree, 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 – The period of 30 days contemplated under sub-Section (1) may stand extended to another period of time if agreed upon by the parties – Therefore, ordinarily the time limit for correction of errors or for interpretation of a specific point or part of the award is 30 days from the date of receipt of the arbitral award – However, the limitation of 30 days can be waived for another period of time, if agreed upon by the parties – Question for consideration is what would be the contours of the expression unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties, as appearing in sub- Section (1) of Section 33. [Para 45.1] Case Law Cited M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. Governor, State of Orissa [2014] 14 SCR 1029 : (2015) 2 SCC 189 – relied on. State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora [2010] 2 SCR 297 : (2010) 3 SCC 690; Gyan Prakash Arya v. Titan Industries Ltd. [2021] 11 SCR 1 : (2023) 1 SCC 153; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 495 : (2005) 7 SCC 791; Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee [1953] 1 SCR 377 : (1952) 2 SCC 648; Gas Authority of India Limited v. Keti Construction (I) Limited [2007] 6 SCR 439 : (2007) 5 SCC 38; Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [2022] 3 SCR 716 : (2022) 9 SCC 286; UHL Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2022] 1 SCR 1 : (2022) 4 SCC 116; Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [2022] 3 SCR 716 : (2022) 9 SCC 286; Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. [2022] 9 SCR 819 : (2023) 1 SCC 602 – referred to. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1583 North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/s. S.A. Builders Ltd. I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.