Court dismisses application for Sole Arbitrator, deems award final, no further correction needed.

The court rejected the application for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to examine the MECON report and the correction in the computation of rent under Section 33. The award was deemed final, and no further deliberation or correction was necessary. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to examine the MECON report.
2. Correction in computation of rent under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to examine the MECON report:

The respondent, Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), filed an application (M.A. No. 20972 of 2021) seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to examine the MECON report as mentioned in paragraph 160 of the award. The applicant argued that the Arbitrator could not adjudicate upon the MECON report due to the need for further evidence and the death of the Arbitrator shortly after delivering the award.

The appellant, India Power Corporation Limited (IPCL), opposed this application, stating that paragraph 160 should not be read in isolation but in conjunction with paragraphs 157 to 161, which dealt with the amendment of the counterclaim filed by ECL. The Arbitrator had dismissed the application for amendment, finding it irrelevant for determining the real question in controversy. The MECON report was related to the expenses for putting the plant into running condition, which the Arbitrator found unnecessary to consider further once the amendment was dismissed.

The court agreed with IPCL, stating that paragraph 160 was part of the discussion on the amendment of the counterclaim and not a standalone issue. The Arbitrator had already dismissed the amendment, rendering the MECON report irrelevant. Thus, the request for appointing a new Arbitrator to examine the MECON report was rejected as it was based on a misreading of the award.

2. Correction in computation of rent under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

ECL also raised an issue regarding the correction in the computation of rent payable for the period from March 2016 to October 2016, claiming it was inadvertently left out by the Arbitrator. They referred to paragraphs 126 to 130 and 132 of the award and argued that the limitation for moving an application under Section 33 had been extended by the court's orders in a suo moto petition.

IPCL countered that the issue of rent computation was not pleaded or prayed in the application, and no correction was required as the Arbitrator had accepted the figures quoted by ECL. The court found that the Arbitrator had indeed accepted ECL's figures, and there was no error in the computation of rent. Additionally, the issue was not raised in the application and could not be introduced during arguments.

Furthermore, the court noted that the Delhi High Court had already addressed this issue in Section 34 proceedings and had dismissed ECL's objections, affirming that the award was final and not interim.

Conclusion:

The court rejected the application for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to examine the MECON report and the correction in the computation of rent under Section 33. The award was deemed final, and no further deliberation or correction was necessary. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

---