Project Consultants Pvt. Ltd vs Maharashtra Industrial ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5519 Bom

                                                           24.CARBP 47.2023.doc

 K.S. Jadhav

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                     IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

          COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.47 OF 2023

 M.M. Project Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,                        ...Petitioner/
                                                            Org. Claimant
           Versus
 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation             ...Respondent
                               ----------
 Mr. Haresh Jagitani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Pushpvijay Kanoji i/b
 Suprabh Jain, Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr. Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Prashant Chavan, Mr. Rajmani
 Varma, Ms. Shraddha Cheda, Mr. Kanishk Varma, Advocates for
 Respondent.
                                 ----------

                                 CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J.

                                 DATE         : 13TH JUNE, 2023.

 ORDER :

1. Mr. Harish Jagitani, learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the issue of law that

arises and which concerns Section 33 (1)(a) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 viz. whether the non-exercise of power of the

Arbitral Tribunal to correct computational errors in the Award is

amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996.

24.CARBP 47.2023.doc

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Sakhare,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent that this Court

will not have jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 as there is no challenge to the Award in its

present form. He has submitted that in the event the Petition is

entertained and allowed, this will result in a modification of the

Award by correcting alleged computational errors. He has further

submitted that the non exercise of discretionary power by the learned

Arbitrator under Section 33 (1)(a) cannot be considered to be a

supplementary Award and hence, not amenable to challenge under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. Considering the narrow issue involved, the Arbitration

Petition is required to be heard finally at the admission stage. All

issues raised in Arbitration Petition are kept open.

4. The parties shall file their respective brief written

arguments and compilation of judgments/authorities which they wish

to rely upon within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

5. Place the Arbitration Petition for hearing at the admission

stage on 8th August, 2023 at 2.30 p.m.

24.CARBP 47.2023.doc

6. At this stage, Mr. Sakhare for the Respondents has sought

leave to file additional Affidavit-in-Reply to the Arbitration Petition.

7. Leave is granted.

8. The additional Affidavit-in-Reply shall be filed within a

period of four weeks.

9. The Petitioner is at liberty to file Affidavit-in-Rejoinder

within a period of two weeks thereafter.

[R.I. CHAGLA, J.]