1991 (10) TMI 332 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered by the Court was whether the award made by the arbitrator contained a "clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission" under Section 15(c) of the Arbitration Act, warranting correction by the Court. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Petitioners could seek correction of the award after having previously conceded to a judgment and decree in terms of the award.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework revolves around Section 15(c) of the Arbitration Act, which empowers the Court to correct an award if it contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. The interpretation of terms such as "clerical," "mistake," "error," "accidental," "slip," and "omission" are crucial in determining whether the correction sought falls within the purview of this section.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court provided a detailed interpretation of the terms used in Section 15(c). It emphasized that a "clerical" error is associated with office work, such as typing or copying, and involves unintentional deviations from accuracy. An "error" or "mistake" refers to an unintentional deviation or wrong action due to inadvertence or ignorance. The term "accidental" implies an event occurring by chance, without design or intent. A "slip" is an unintentional or trivial mistake, while "omission" refers to something neglected or left undone.

Key evidence and findings:

The Petitioners argued that the arbitrator awarded the amount of Rs. 46,649 twice, constituting a clerical mistake. The Court analyzed the arbitrator's award, particularly paragraphs 11.11 and 14.1 to 14.3, to determine the arbitrator's intent and actions. The arbitrator initially identified the Respondent's entitlement to Rs. 46,649 but chose to address this amount separately under claim No. V, where it was ultimately granted.

Application of law to facts:

The Court applied the definitions and interpretations of the terms in Section 15(c) to the facts of the case. It concluded that the arbitrator's actions were deliberate and intentional, not accidental or clerical. The arbitrator consciously postponed the grant of Rs. 46,649 to claim No. V, indicating no error or mistake as defined under Section 15(c).

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Petitioners' argument that the award contained a clerical mistake was rejected based on the Court's interpretation of the arbitrator's intent and actions. The Court emphasized the deliberate nature of the arbitrator's decision-making process, which negated the possibility of a clerical error or accidental slip.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the award did not contain any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate the applicability of Section 15(c) to the award. Furthermore, the Petitioners' previous concession to a judgment and decree in terms of the award in O.P. No. 7 of 1989 precluded them from seeking a different outcome.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

The Court stated, "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."

Core principles established:

The Court established that for an error to be corrected under Section 15(c) of the Arbitration Act, it must be clerical, accidental, or an omission in nature, not relating to the substance or merits of the award. Deliberate and intentional actions by the arbitrator do not fall within this scope.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the award did not contain any clerical mistake or accidental error as defined under Section 15(c) of the Arbitration Act. The Petitioners' concession to the judgment and decree in terms of the award further barred them from seeking a different outcome.