Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1991 (10) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ught under Section 15 read with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act. The ground was that "the award contains clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission". The learned trial Judge dismissed both the O.P. No. 12 of 1989 and I.A. No. 2772 of 1989. 2. The Petitioners herein are Instrumentation Limited, a Government of India undertaking. The Respondent is their contractor. The O.P. No. 12 of 1989 and I.A. No. 2772 of 1989 were filed by the Petitioners, as they considered that an excess amount of Rs. 46,649 had been awarded to the Respondent on account of the aforestated clerical mistake. 3. On 13th May 1978 the Petitioners awarded to the Respondent a contract for carrying out the work of construction of certain build....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the Respondent was determined to be Rs. 46,649 in the same paragraph at page 37-38 the Arbitrator says; Admittedly only Rs. 45,308 was released to the claimant. So the claimant is entitled to the balance of Rs. 46,649. But the final bill position contained in Ext. R-29 Annexure I, does not make mention of this amount. This amount and the amount of bank guarantee encashed form the subject matter of claim No. V and hence I will deal with them separately. (emphasis supplied) Claim No. V is considered in paragraph 14.1 to 14.3 of the award. Claim No. V was for refund of Rs. 2,09,265 lying with the Petitioners. A sum of Rs. 1,96,649 was found as payable towards this item. This, no doubt, includes the disputed amount of Rs. 46,649. 5. On ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question is whether the award contains "a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission." The words quoted by me are the words used 'in Clause (c) of Section 15 of the Act. The use of the words "clerical" "mistake" "error" "accidental" "slip" and "omission" have significance because they illustrate what kind of corrections the court is empowered to make, under Section 15(c) of the Act. 8. The word "clerical", as understood in its ordinary connotation means connected with office, or clerks or work such as typing or secretarial job. The error sought to be corrected must, therefore, be connected with copying, writing and such other matters. Then, "error" is Anr. word used by the statute. It conveys or refers to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... word "accidental" denotes a happening or event ensuing without design, intent or motive or through inattention, or carelessness. Therefore the error which can be corrected under Section 15(c) must be of the nature answering the meaning of the word "accidental". Then the word "slip". "Slip" in the context of Section 15(c) and the nature of the correction sought, means an unintentional or trivial mistake or fault. The essence of a "slip" is that it is not only unintentional but is also trivial. A major error cannot be a "slip". Another feature of "slip" is that it is unintentional and is not designed. Lastly, the word "omission" means something neglected or left undone. It is the failure to perform or abstention from performance. It is som....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....take. Suppose, what he did is an error. The error cannot be said to be of a clerical nature, for the simple reason that it relates to the contents of the award, the reasoning, deliberation and substance of the whole matter. The discussion of the claim for Rs. 46,649 in paragraph 11.1 and postponement of the grant of the amount until paragraph 11.11 is not an accidental action or something done by chance. It was known to the arbitrator that the amount was due but he chose to grant it only when he considered the claim No. V. There is thus a clear design and intent to grant the amount of Rs. 46,649 only under claim No. V in paragraph 11.11. This eliminates the element of accident. There is no slip in what he did. He acted deliberately. The gra....