Correction and interpretation of award; additional award
Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with correction and interpretation of award; additional award. Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties— (a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties—
(a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award;
(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.
(2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award.
(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.
(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other party, may request, within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award.
(5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (4) to be justified, it shall make the additional arbitral award within sixty days from the receipt of such request.
(6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5).
(7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional arbitral award made under this section.
Section 33, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs S. A. Builders LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Court held that an arbitrator who issues a clarification of the award outside the thirty-day window in Section 33, otherwise than within a period the parties have themselves agreed upon, acts after becoming functus officio, and that post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) runs on the aggregate of principal and pre-award/pendente lite interest following Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd., which overruled S.L. Arora.
On this section: Directly construes the time limit in Section 33 and the parties' power to agree a longer period, fixing the point at which the tribunal loses jurisdiction to correct or clarify its award.
-
Gyan Prakash Arya v. Titan Company Limited (M/s Titan Industries Ltd.)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 33 permits only correction of clerical, arithmetical or computational errors (or agreed interpretation / additional award on omitted claims). An arbitrator cannot, under the guise of s.33, modify an award to substitute a new valuation or claim that was not the claim as originally decided; such modification is beyond the scope of s.33 and cannot be sustained under ss.34/37.
On this section: Direct teaching on the outer boundary of s.33 correction power — substantive revaluation of gold from Rs.740/gram to market rate held impermissible.
-
Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An arbitral tribunal which has terminated proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to non-filing of claim by the claimant retains jurisdiction to consider an application for recall of the order terminating the proceedings if the claimant shows sufficient cause. The tribunal does not become functus officio after passing an order under Section 25(a). The phrase 'where without showing sufficient cause' in Section 25(a) contemplates that sufficient cause can be shown either before or after the termination order is passed. If sufficient cause is shown, the arbitral tribunal can accept the statement of claim and permit the claimant to file the claim even after the time fixed under Section 23(1) has expired. The principles underlying Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can be invoked by the arbitral tribunal to recall orders passed under Section 25(a) on sufficient cause being shown. The non-use of the phrase 'the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate' in Section 25(a), as opposed to its use in Section 32(3), indicates that the legislature intended that if the claimant shows sufficient cause, the proceedings can be re-commenced.
On this section: Power of arbitral tribunal to correct computation errors, clerical or typographical errors, or give interpretation of specific point of award
-
International Seaport Dredging Pvt. LTD vs Kamarajar Port Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Statutory bodies and government corporations are not entitled to differential treatment in arbitration proceedings compared to private entities. The Arbitration Act is a self-contained code that mandates equal treatment of all parties under Section 18. When considering applications for stay of arbitration awards for payment of money, courts must apply principles of Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC as guidance, but the Arbitration Act provisions take precedence. The status of a party as a statutory undertaking or its perceived reliability cannot be basis for modifying conditions of stay. Instead, courts must require deposit of a substantial portion of the decretal amount (here, 75%) as condition for stay, regardless of the party's nature or status.
On this section: Correction of award and additional arbitral awards - both parties filed applications which were disposed by arbitral tribunal
-
Dani Wooltex Corporation vs Sheil Properties Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be exercised only when the Arbitral Tribunal records its satisfaction based on material on record that the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Abandonment of a claim can be a ground to invoke this power, but abandonment cannot be readily inferred. Abandonment can be express or implied, but implied abandonment requires admitted or proved facts that are so clinching and convincing that the only inference which can be drawn is of abandonment. Mere failure of a claimant to request the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary or that the claim has been abandoned. It is the Arbitral Tribunal's duty to fix meetings and hearing dates, and it cannot abdicate this duty by requiring parties to request such dates. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot exercise its power under Section 32(2)(c) casually or without proper factual foundation, as doing so would defeat the very object of the Arbitration Act.
On this section: Tribunal's power to correct errors in awards; referenced in context of mandate termination
-
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded from application to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The express exclusion is inferred from the language of Section 34(3), particularly the phrase 'but not thereafter' which creates an absolute outer boundary of 120 days for challenging arbitral awards. This exclusion is also necessarily implied from the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act, which is to provide speedy dispute resolution with finality and certainty of awards. Once a party receives an arbitral award, the three-month limitation period commences, and subsequent fraud or mistake by the other party cannot defer the commencement of this period or extend the outer 120-day boundary. The principle of 'unbreakability' of the limitation period, enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, precludes any extension beyond the prescribed period.
On this section: Correction and interpretation of award; alternative starting point for limitation period under Section 34(3)
-
Usha Chatrath v. J.B. Kohli
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arbitral proceedings terminate by the Final Arbitral Award under s.32(1); subject to s.33 and s.34(4), the tribunal’s mandate ends under s.32(3). Once a Final Award is passed (here, an order that partition properties must be sold), the arbitrator cannot reopen or modify it merely because parties continued to appear; post-award residual power is confined to s.33 correction/additional award or court-ordered remittal under s.34(4).
On this section: Uses Section 33 to mark the only residual powers a tribunal retains after the final award, and holds orders outside them to be without jurisdiction.
-
Manipal Stock and Share Brokers Ltd. v. Prakash G. Patankar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Absent party agreement, s.33(1) allows only computation/clerical/typographical correction; s.33(4) additional award lies only for a claim presented but totally omitted from consideration — not for reappreciation of a claim already granted/rejected. s.33 confers no power of review; a supplementary award that revisits a decided loss claim on fresh material is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
On this section: Draws the s.33 boundary between correction/additional-award and impermissible review — early leading HC teaching complementing Gyan Prakash Arya.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Learned Counsel for the applicant, ECL during the course of the arguments not only requested for appointment of Arbitrator with respect to the contents of the paragraph 160 of the award but raised a further issue relating to Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') for requiring correction in the computation of the rent payable to the applicant ECL for the period March 2016 till October 2016 which was inadvertently left out by the learned Arbitrator while giving the award. Reference was …
-
… the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in the respective MSEFC Cases, amending the Final Award dated 26.03.2014, has been challenged by the Writ Petitioners-Claimants. According to the petitioners, the impugned order passed being not covered by Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the same is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Arbitrator thereof on a petition / letter filed by the Addl. Secretary to Government of Odisha, MSME Department, could not have amended such final award as the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, the …
-
… Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also submits that once the award is passed, the Council becomes functus officio to entertain any application, lest an application to rescind the award. The only scope is with the Council to rectify the award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Arbitration Act'), which reads as under: > "33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.—(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties— > (a) a …
Questions about Section 33
What have the courts held on Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs S. A. Builders LTD (17 Dec 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Directly construes the time limit in Section 33 and the parties' power to agree a longer period, fixing the point at which the tribunal loses jurisdiction to correct or clarify its award. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 33, section 33 Arbitration Act, section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act 1996 section 33. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs S. A. Builders LTD (17 Dec 2024).
What should I read with Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 31 (Form and contents of arbitral award), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 33, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.