Termination of Proceedings, Correction, Interpretation and Additional Awards

Correction of errors, section 33(1)(a) and (3)

Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period has been agreed, a party with notice to the other party may request the tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors, or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award.

Section 33(3): the tribunal may correct any such error on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.

Note the two different starting points, which is a fine point students miss. A party's request runs from receipt of the award; the tribunal's own correction runs from the date of the award.

And note the limit of the power. It reaches computation, clerical and typographical errors and errors of a similar nature. It is not a power to reconsider the merits. A tribunal that used section 33 to change its mind about liability would be acting without jurisdiction, being functus officio under section 32(3).

Interpretation, section 33(1)(b)

If so agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other may, within the same thirty days, request the tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.

This one is available only if the parties have agreed to it, unlike correction. That is a real limitation and it is easy to overlook.

Section 33(2): if the tribunal considers a request under sub-section (1) 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.

"Shall form part of the arbitral award" matters: the interpretation is not a separate document but is absorbed into the award itself.

Additional award, section 33(4) and (5)

Unless otherwise agreed, a party with notice to the other may, within thirty days from receipt of the award, request the tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award.

Section 33(5): if the tribunal considers the request justified, it shall make the additional award within sixty days from receipt of the request.

Note the difference in the deadline: thirty days for a correction or interpretation, sixty days for an additional award, which is fair because an additional award may require the tribunal to decide something for the first time.

And note the limit: claims presented in the proceedings but omitted from the award. A party cannot use section 33(4) to introduce a claim it never made.

Section 33(6): the tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period within which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional award under sub-sections (2) or (5).

Section 33(7): section 31 applies to a correction, an interpretation or an additional award. So each must be in writing, signed, dated, and state the place, and a signed copy must be delivered to each party.

Why section 33 matters for limitation

This is the practical reason the chapter exists, and it is worth an examination answer on its own.

Section 34(3) requires an application to set aside an award to be made within three months from the date on which the party received the award; and, crucially, if a request has been made under section 33, from the date on which that request has been disposed of by the tribunal.

So a section 33 request restarts the section 34 clock. A party that is close to the three month limit and makes a section 33 request buys time; a party that ignores a pending section 33 request and files under section 34 on the original date may find the application premature or the calculation disputed.

The corollary is a trap. The clock restarts on the disposal of the request, not on the making of it, and a request that is frivolous is still disposed of. Work the dates carefully in any problem question.

A worked example

An award is dated 3 May and received by both parties on 10 May. It awards Rs. 62 lakhs, but the tribunal has added up the six heads of claim wrongly, the total of the individual figures being Rs. 64 lakhs; it has also failed to deal at all with the claimant's separate claim for storage charges, which was pleaded and argued.

The arithmetic. A computation error under section 33(1)(a). Either party may request a correction within thirty days of 10 May, that is by 9 June, with notice to the other. The tribunal could also have corrected it on its own initiative, but only within thirty days of 3 May, the date of the award.

The omitted claim. Not a correction; it is a claim presented in the proceedings but omitted from the award, so it is an additional award under section 33(4). The request must be made within thirty days of receipt, and if the tribunal considers it justified it must make the additional award within sixty days of the request under section 33(5).

The respondent wants the tribunal to explain what "net of retention" means in paragraph 41. That is an interpretation under section 33(1)(b), and it is available only if the parties agreed to that remedy. If they did not, the tribunal cannot give it.

Can the tribunal reconsider its finding on delay while it is at it? No. Under section 32(3) its mandate terminated with the proceedings, and section 33 does not reopen the merits. It is functus officio except for the specific powers in section 33 and for section 34(4).

What does this do to the setting aside period? The three months under section 34(3) will run from the date the section 33 request is disposed of, not from 10 May.

What beginners get wrong

Section 33 is not an appeal to the tribunal. It covers computation, clerical and typographical errors and similar, interpretation where agreed, and claims omitted from the award.

Interpretation requires the parties' agreement; correction and an additional award do not.

The tribunal's own correction runs from the date of the award, a party's request from receipt.

An additional award has sixty days, not thirty, from receipt of the request.

The tribunal is functus officio after termination, subject only to section 33 and section 34(4).

A section 33 request moves the section 34 limitation start date to the disposal of the request.

Quick revision

• 32(1): proceedings end by the final award or by an order under sub-section (2). 32(2): order where the claimant withdraws (unless the respondent objects and the tribunal recognises a legitimate interest in a final settlement), the parties agree, or continuation has become unnecessary or impossible.
• 32(3): the mandate terminates with the proceedings, subject to section 33 and section 34(4).
• 33(1)(a): correction of computation, clerical, typographical and similar errors, on a party's request within thirty days of receipt, with notice. 33(3): on the tribunal's own initiative within thirty days of the date of the award.
• 33(1)(b): interpretation of a specific point or part, only if the parties so agreed, within the same period. 33(2): correction or interpretation within thirty days of the request; the interpretation forms part of the award.
• 33(4): additional award for claims presented but omitted, requested within thirty days of receipt. 33(5): made within sixty days of the request. 33(6): the tribunal may extend. 33(7): section 31 applies to all three.
• Section 34(3) runs from receipt of the award, or from the disposal of a section 33 request.

Test yourself

1. When does an arbitral tribunal become functus officio? On the termination of the arbitral proceedings, under section 32(3), which occurs on the final award or on an order under section 32(2). The mandate terminates subject only to section 33 and section 34(4).

2. A claimant withdraws its claim. Must the tribunal terminate the proceedings? Usually yes, under section 32(2)(a). But not where the respondent objects to the order and the tribunal recognises a legitimate interest on his part in obtaining a final settlement of the dispute.

3. What is the difference between a correction and an additional award? A correction under section 33(1)(a) deals with computation, clerical or typographical errors or errors of a similar nature already in the award. An additional award under section 33(4) decides a claim that was presented in the proceedings but omitted from the award, and the tribunal has sixty days from the request rather than thirty.

4. Can a party ask the tribunal to explain an ambiguous paragraph? Only if the parties have agreed to that remedy. Section 33(1)(b) makes a request for an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award available "if so agreed by the parties", unlike correction, which needs no such agreement.

5. How does section 33 affect the time for a setting aside application? Section 34(3) runs the three month period from the date on which the party received the award, or, if a request has been made under section 33, from the date on which that request has been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal.