Final arbitral award construed as a whole; stray reference to further evidence did not justify reopening or Section 33 correction.

An arbitral award must be read as a whole, and a stray reference to further evidence does not make a final award interim or justify reopening concluded claims. Here, paragraph 160 was only part of the discussion on amendment of the counterclaim and did not require appointment of a fresh arbitrator, because the award contained a complete operative disposal and left no further issue open. A correction under Section 33 was also impermissible, as the alleged rent-computation omission was neither properly pleaded nor supported by any correctable computational error, and the award had already accepted the claimed figures. The award was treated as final, with no basis for further arbitral proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether paragraph 160 of the arbitral award required appointment of a fresh arbitrator for further examination of the MECON report and related material; (ii) Whether a correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained on the alleged omission in computation of rent.

Issue (i): Whether paragraph 160 of the arbitral award required appointment of a fresh arbitrator for further examination of the MECON report and related material.

Analysis: Paragraph 160 could not be read in isolation. Read with the surrounding paragraphs, it formed part of the discussion on the amendment of the counterclaim and merely recorded submissions. The award ultimately rejected the amendment and contained a complete operative disposition, leaving no further issue open for adjudication or evidence. An isolated reference to further evidence did not convert the award into an interim award or justify reopening the reference.

Conclusion: The request for appointment of a fresh arbitrator on this ground was untenable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained on the alleged omission in computation of rent.

Analysis: The alleged Section 33 plea was neither pleaded nor prayed for in the application. In any event, the arbitral award had accepted the figures claimed by the respondent on the rent issue, so no correctable computational error was shown. The same objection had also been raised in the Section 34 proceedings and had not found favour.

Conclusion: No correction under Section 33 was permissible on the alleged omission.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was treated as a final award that fully resolved the reference, and no basis was found to reopen the matter or direct further arbitral proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award must be construed as a whole, and a stray reference to further evidence does not render a final award interim or justify reopening concluded claims; correction provisions cannot be used to introduce an unpleaded or unsupported computational grievance.

---