Error In Order Passed By Court In Arbitration Proceeding Can Be Corrected Under Sections 152, 153 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

Brief Facts

The applicant under section 11 of the Arbitration Act filed an application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve dispute with the respondent. The dispute originated from a work order which was entered into on October 20, 2016 under which the respondent failed to pay due amount for the services rendered. The MSME council was approached by the applicant but the application was later withdrawn due non registration of the applicant as an MSME when the contract was executed.

The applicant invoked the arbitration clause. The court appointed the arbitrator. During the arbitration proceedings, a typographical error in the work order was identified. Thereafter, the applicant filed the present application seeking rectification of the error.

It is the contention of the applicant that there was a typographical error in the Work Order number mentioned in the captioned petition for which an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC before the Arbitrator. However, the said application was dismissed and directed the applicant to seek rectification before the court. It was further submitted that correcting error in the order would not change the nature of the petition or order.

It was argued by the respondent that sections 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) would not be applicable as there is no error in an order passed by the court on March 24, 2023. It was further submitted that the order came to be passed on the basis of the work order for which the arbitration was started.

Observations:

The court at the outset observed that “It is a well settled principle of law that when there is a discrepancy between the general and special law, the special law prevails over the general law and the said principle finds its origin in the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Therefore, one can ascertain the applicability of law based on facts and circumstances of the same, as it differs with case to case.”

The court while relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas,2019 observed that when a special law is silent for any situation addressed by the general law, the general law would be applicable.

While applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, the court observed that Sections 152 and 153 of the CPC provides powers to the Court to rectify its own errors, which are arithmetic or clerical, and amend any proceedings at any stage, if it deems fit, respectively. On the other hand, in the Arbitration Act, the power to rectify the errors in an arbitral award is bestowed upon the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act.

It opined that “the rectification is being sought in the order dated 24th March, 2023 passed by this Court, wherein the order is neither an arbitral award nor this Court was a Arbitral Tribunal and hence, Section 33 of the Act cannot be made applicable in the instant case.”

“Therefore, since the Arbitration Act provides no resolution for the rectification of the impugned Work Order number in the order dated 24th March, 2023 and the pleadings of the captioned petition, the general provisions envisaged in the CPC i.e., Sections 152 and 153 of the CPC will be applicable.”

It further added that, Section 152 of the CPC pertains only for the purpose of rectification of errors in orders, decrees, judgments etc. passed by the Court, whereas Section 153 of the CPC deals with the general power of the Court in amending any proceedings of the suit, at any stage, if it deems fit.

“In Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, 2001 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the mistakes, which are accidental and not intentional, requires to be corrected by the Courts, so far as the same does not affect or modify the meaning of the effective judicial order passed by the Court” the court observed.

The Court noted that it was clarified by the Supreme Court that by way of exercising its powers under Section 152 of the CPC, the Court cannot revisit and review the order and contents therein, by altering the intent and meaning of the order passed by the Court.

In Gulzara Singh v. Devinder Singh,2004 it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that while exercising powers under Section 152 and 153 of the CPC, it is not necessary to first amend the pleadings in order to correct the decree.

The court while summarising the principles observed that firstly, the error is set to be an arithmetic or clerical error; secondly, the said error must be made in the order, decree, judgment passed by the Court, and thirdly, the said error must have been made unintentionally or accidentally.

Based on the above, the court noted that considering the conduct of the respondent for the duration of the proceedings of the captioned petition as well as the Document no. 5 i.e., Work Order, it is appropriate to assume that both the parties were aware of the fact that the dispute arises out of the Work Order bearing no. WOJPR/00061/16-17. Moreover, there is no submission or document on record with a Work Order bearing no. WOJPR/0006/16-17 to create any confusion or misconception amongst the parties.

Finally, the court concluded that “the rectification sought by the applicant pertaining to the Work Order number is merely a clerical error. Moreover, by rectifying the same, the intent expressed in the pleadings of the captioned petition as well as the order dated 24th March, 2024 will not be affected, and no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent.”

Case Title: ADO INDIA PVT. LTD. versus ATS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: I.A. 1612/2024 in ARB. P. 1432/2022

Judgment Date: 9/12/2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order