- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
While arbitral awards are intended to be final and binding, there are instances where they may be corrected or interpreted after being issued. The correction usually pertains to clerical or arithmetical errors, whereas interpretation is required when the award contains ambiguities or unclear terms. These powers are not limitless and must align with specific provisions under the applicable arbitration laws, such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India), which allows for corrections, interpretations, and additional awards in specific situations.
Under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitrator has the power to correct clerical or arithmetical errors in the award. These errors are typically accidental or typographical in nature and do not affect the substance of the award.
Example:
If the arbitrator mistakenly awards ₹1,00,000 instead of ₹10,00,000 due to a typing error, the arbitrator can correct this mistake without changing the substance of the award.
If the terms of the award are unclear or ambiguous, an arbitrator can interpret the award to provide clarification on the issues that remain unresolved or unclear. This power allows the arbitrator to clarify points regarding the remedy or implementation of the award.
Example:
If an award orders a party to make a payment but does not specify the mode or timeline of payment, the arbitrator may interpret the award to clarify how the payment should be made, e.g., through bank transfer within 30 days.
If the tribunal has failed to address any of the claims presented by the parties, the tribunal may issue an additional award to cover the overlooked issues. This can occur even after the final award has been issued.
Example:
If an arbitrator decides on monetary compensation but does not address the issue of interest, the arbitrator may issue an additional award to cover the interest that was omitted initially.
While arbitrators can correct or clarify awards, they cannot alter the substance of the award once it has been made. The correction or interpretation must be limited to clerical errors, ambiguities, or omissions without revisiting the merits or the final decision of the award.
Example:
If a party is dissatisfied with the amount of damages awarded, they cannot request an increase or decrease based on new arguments, as this would go beyond the scope of correction or interpretation.
Even though corrections or clarifications can be made, the principle of finality in arbitration means that the award, as originally made, cannot be revisited unless the correction is based on clear errors. The principle of res judicata ensures that the issues addressed in the arbitral award cannot be relitigated.
Example:
If an arbitrator issues an award, a party cannot revisit the substantive decision by claiming that the award was incorrect, unless there is a significant error in the application of the law or facts.
This section of the Indian Arbitration Act provides the mechanism for the correction of awards, as well as requests for interpretation. The parties can request the tribunal to make corrections or clarifications, and the tribunal can do so if it believes there is a clear mistake or ambiguity.
Example:
If the arbitral award is ambiguous on the point of implementation, the parties may request the arbitrators to clarify whether the payment is to be made in installments or as a lump sum.
Requests for correction or interpretation must generally be made within a specific period from the date the award is made. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the request for correction must be made within 30 days of receiving the award, though this can vary depending on the rules of the institution under which the arbitration took place.
Example:
If a party notices a clerical error in the award, they must request the correction within 30 days. After this period, the tribunal’s authority to correct or interpret may expire.
If a party believes that the correction or interpretation of the award has violated principles of justice or fairness, they may approach the court for judicial review. However, this is typically limited to cases where the correction or interpretation has gone beyond the permissible scope of errors or clarifications.
Example:
If an arbitrator’s correction of a typographical error is challenged in court, the party may seek judicial review to assess if the correction was in line with the legal provisions and did not alter the substance of the award.
Example:
A contractor files a claim for ₹2,00,000 but the arbitrator awards ₹20,00,000 due to an arithmetical mistake. Upon realizing the mistake, the arbitrator issues a correction to award ₹2,00,000 as originally intended.
Example:
An award orders the payment of ₹500,000 by one party to another but does not specify whether the amount is to be paid in one lump sum or in installments. The party requesting clarification can ask the arbitrator to interpret the award and provide clear instructions regarding the mode of payment.
Example:
During the arbitration proceedings, the claimant asked for both damages and interest, but the arbitrator only awarded damages. The claimant can request the arbitrator to issue an additional award addressing the omitted issue of interest.
Understand that the power to correct or interpret an award is limited to clerical errors, typographical mistakes, or ambiguities. It does not extend to revisiting the substantive decision of the award.
Example:
A party cannot request the arbitrator to reduce the amount of damages or change the award’s legal reasoning.
If there is an ambiguity in the award, request clarification within the legal time frame (usually within 30 days) to ensure the arbitrator can address it.
Example:
If a party believes that the terms of the award are unclear, they should submit a clarification request promptly rather than waiting until after the period has passed.
If you believe the interpretation or correction goes beyond what is permissible under the law, you can approach the court for judicial review. However, this is a high bar and requires compelling reasons.
Example:
If an arbitrator’s correction appears to alter the substance of the award rather than simply fixing an error, the party can seek judicial review to ensure fairness.
Suppose SuperTech Ltd. and BuildCorp Inc. enter into an arbitration over a construction dispute. The arbitrator issues an award ordering BuildCorp Inc. to pay ₹10,00,000 for damages. However, the award mistakenly mentions a payment of ₹1,00,000.
Steps SuperTech Ltd. should take:
Request for Correction: SuperTech Ltd. should file a request under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to correct the clerical error.
Arbitrator’s Action: The arbitrator reviews the request and corrects the error, increasing the payment amount to ₹10,00,000 as originally intended.
Finality: Once corrected, the award becomes final and binding, and SuperTech Ltd. can proceed with enforcement.
Answer By Law4u TeamDiscover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.