Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Arbitral Award to Correct Alleged Typographical or Computational Errors

The Award Holder filed an execution petition under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to enforce an arbitral award dated 19.09.2023.

The Award, which was never challenged under Section 34, directed the payment of pre-award interest for the period from 01.07.2017 to 19.07.2019.

The Award Debtor paid the principal and post-award interest but calculated pre-award interest from 01.07.2018 instead of 2017, claiming the 2017 date in the Award was a typographical error.

This resulted in a shortfall of Rs. 9,05,739.70/-, which the Award Holder sought to recover along with 18% interest on the delay.

1. Whether an executing court can correct an alleged typographical error in an arbitral award regarding the period of interest.

2. Whether the Award Holder is entitled to additional interest (18% p.a.) on the outstanding differential amount from the date of demand until realization.

The court applied the principle that an executing court cannot "go behind the decree" or award, meaning it must enforce the instrument as it stands without variation.

The court relied on Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the enforcement of awards.

The court emphasized Section 33 of the Act, which provides the exclusive mechanism for correcting clerical or typographical errors by the Arbitral Tribunal.

The court also invoked the principle of finality of awards, whereby an award not challenged under Section 34 or corrected under Section 33 becomes binding on the parties.

The Court reasoned that its jurisdiction as an executing court is strictly limited; it cannot modify, vary, or reinterpret the terms of the Award on merits.

Since the Award unequivocally specified the start date for pre-award interest as 01.07.2017, the Court held it must be enforced as written.

The Court rejected the Award Debtor's defense of a "typographical error," noting that the Debtor failed to utilize Section 33 for corrections or Section 34 for a challenge.

Consequently, accepting such a plea at the execution stage would constitute an impermissible "collateral challenge".

Regarding the claim for 18% interest on the shortfall, the Court found that the default arose from a bona fide dispute over interpretation rather than contumacious conduct, thus warranting no further penal interest.

The Award Holder is entitled to the differential amount of Rs. 9,05,739.70/-, but the prayer for additional 18% interest on this sum was denied. The Award Debtor was directed to pay the balance within four weeks and the petition was disposed of accordingly.