- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
In the world of arbitration, the principle of finality is fundamental. However, there are circumstances under which arbitrators can revisit or modify their decisions. While arbitration aims to provide a speedy and efficient resolution to disputes, it does not mean that arbitral awards are always final and unchangeable. Arbitrators do have some limited powers to correct or clarify their awards, but these powers are subject to specific legal provisions and are typically restricted to clear errors or ambiguities.
Under most arbitration rules, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India), arbitrators have the power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in their awards. These are simple, obvious errors that do not affect the substantive issues of the dispute but may have been made during the drafting of the award.
Example: If an arbitrator mistakenly writes the wrong amount in a financial award (e.g., ₹10,000 instead of ₹1,00,000), they can correct this typographical error without affecting the substantive judgment.
If the award is ambiguous or not sufficiently clear, arbitrators may have the power to clarify the award. This can happen if the award does not provide clear directions or is open to multiple interpretations.
Example: In the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or other institutional arbitrations, if an arbitrator's award involves the delivery of goods but does not specify the mode of delivery, they might clarify this ambiguity upon request from the parties.
While arbitrators do have limited power to revisit their decisions, they cannot change the substantive part of the award unless the correction is based on a clear mistake. These errors may include misinterpretation of evidence or an erroneous application of law.
Example: If an arbitrator incorrectly applies the wrong legal standard to a case, they might correct this as a manifest error under certain circumstances, but the scope is very limited.
In certain cases, courts can intervene to set aside an award. This typically happens when the arbitrators have exceeded their jurisdiction, acted in excess of their powers, or violated public policy or natural justice. However, this is a judicial intervention rather than the arbitrator revisiting their own decision.
Example: In Indian Oil Corporation v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991), the Supreme Court of India set aside an arbitral award on the grounds that it was in violation of Indian public policy. While this was not a case of an arbitrator revisiting their decision, it illustrates how courts can review awards in exceptional circumstances.
The principle of res judicata ensures that once a dispute has been adjudicated upon and a final decision has been rendered, the same dispute cannot be relitigated. Arbitration awards are typically considered final and binding, but limited grounds for revisiting them exist under specific legal provisions. In general, arbitrators cannot revisit the substantive aspects of their decisions once a final award has been issued unless clear legal grounds are demonstrated.
Example: If an arbitrator has issued an award and one party later tries to reopen the case, the principle of res judicata would usually prevent them from re-examining the same issue unless new evidence or a clear legal mistake is shown.
Under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitral tribunal has the power to make corrections or interpretations of its award upon the request of a party or on its own motion. However, this power is quite narrow and only applies to clerical errors, ambiguities, or additional issues that the tribunal has not addressed but need clarification.
Example: In Union of India v. M/s. D. N. Bhatia (2005), the Delhi High Court allowed the tribunal to clarify its decision on a specific point of law that was not adequately addressed in the original award, thus clarifying the scope of the award.
If there are obvious errors, such as in numbers, calculations, or spelling mistakes in the award, the arbitrator can correct them.
Example: A case in which the arbitrator awards a sum of money but mistakenly types ₹500,000 instead of ₹50,000 can be corrected by the arbitrator.
If the award leaves some aspects unclear or ambiguous, the arbitrator may provide clarification without altering the original award's substance.
Example: In cases where the arbitrator has awarded a specific remedy, but the implementation of that remedy is not clear (e.g., how an injunction is to be implemented), the arbitrator may clarify the remedy.
In rare cases, if an arbitrator has made a ruling that exceeds their jurisdiction (for example, deciding on issues outside the scope of the arbitration agreement), they may correct or modify that portion of the award.
Example: If an arbitrator issues an award on a matter that was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator may revisit that part of the award upon discovering the error.
If a party’s claim was accidentally omitted or overlooked during the arbitration process, the arbitrator may revisit the award to ensure that all claims are addressed properly.
Example: A claimant files a claim for damages, but due to an error, the arbitrator does not address it. The arbitrator may revisit and include this claim if the omission was an error.
If you believe that an arbitrator’s decision was flawed, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows parties to challenge the award in court on limited grounds such as bias, exceeding jurisdiction, or violations of public policy.
Example: A party may seek judicial review if they believe that the award was issued with procedural errors or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.
If the award is unclear, you can approach the arbitrators to request a correction or clarification within the permissible time frame under the applicable rules or the Arbitration Act.
Example: A party may seek clarification if the award does not specify a clear remedy, such as the method for payment of damages.
Suppose Tech Enterprises and BuildRight Ltd. entered into arbitration regarding a breach of contract. The arbitrator issues an award in favor of Tech Enterprises, ordering BuildRight to pay ₹1,000,000 as damages. However, due to a typographical error, the award states ₹10,000,000.
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
