TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alternative, the appellant shall pay to the claimant/respondent within the said period of three months, the market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of the gold at Rs. 740 per gram from 24.07.2004 till the date of payment. 4. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act and requested to modify the award dated 04.12.2010 by correcting computational/arithmetical/clerical error by deleting "at Rs. 740 per gram as claimed in the claim statement" at page 14, second para, line 20 and to delete "Rs. 740.00 per gram" at page 17, para 15(b), line 3, and substitute the same by "Rs. 20,747/- per 10 grams" at page 17, para 15(b), line 3. 5. The lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1996 Act before the City Civil Court. The said Court dismissed the said suit under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Further, appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act has been dismissed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the City Civil Court and the order passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act and modifying the award dated 04.12.2010 as above, the original appellant - respondent before the arbitrator has preferred the present appeal. 8. Shri Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end the order passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act and modifying the award. However, he submitted that what has been modified by the learned arbitrator on an application filed under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is in the context of the alternative prayer and the relief being granted by the learned arbitrator. Even if the original award stands as it is, the respondent - claimant shall be entitled to return of the gold which was the first and primary relief claimed and granted by the learned arbitrator. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 10.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the 1996 Act, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned arbitrator was as per the original claim made by the respondent - original claimant and as per the statement of claim. Even, there was a specific finding by the learned arbitrator on the alternative relief of payment of value as on the date of the award. The relevant discussion reads as under: "However, in the relief para of the claim statement this rate has been shown as Rs. 740.00 per gram and the value of 3,648.80 grams due to them as Rs. 27,00,112.00. The counsel for the claimant submitted that as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and another vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 274 in an action of wrongful detention of plaintiff's chattel otherwise known as judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ator allowed the said application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act and modified the original award dated 04.12.2010. The modified award is reproduced hereinabove. 12. 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. Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected. In the present case, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical error in the original award passed by the l....