Patna High Court
M/s. Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited,versusThe Bihar State Electricity Board (now M/s. Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited),
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the arbitral tribunal’s additional award merely corrected a clerical inconsistency within the ambit of Section 33, and therefore the appeal challenging it under Section 34 fails.
Summary
The appellant, a steel manufacturing company, had its electricity supply disconnected after a surprise inspection alleged theft of electricity. The dispute was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award on 4 Oct 1998. The respondent later filed a Section 33 application seeking correction of what it claimed were contradictory directions in the award, leading to an additional award on 1 Dec 1998. The appellant challenged the additional award under Section 34, but the Commercial Court dismissed the challenge, finding no patent illegality. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the Section 33 application fell within the statutory scope of correcting clerical or computational errors, and concluded that the arbitral tribunal merely corrected a clerical inconsistency, which is permissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the additional award upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for correction or interpretation of an arbitral award is permissible when the alleged error relates to contradictory directions rather than a mere clerical or computational mistake.
- Whether the additional award dated 01‑Dec‑1998 can be set aside under Section 34 on the ground of patent illegality or perversity.
- Whether the direction in the original award concerning the basis of billing was contradictory and required correction under Section 33.
- The extent of the arbitral tribunal’s power to modify an award versus the court’s limited power under Section 34.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 33, 34
- Commercial Court Act, 2015 — s. 3
- Electricity Act
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 33
- Section 34
- Award correction
- Electricity theft
- Tariff calculation
- Commercial Court
- Additional award
- Clerical error
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.6 of 2025
======================================================
M/s. Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited, a Public Limited Company
having its registered Office at Laxmi Narain Road, Muzaffarpur and its
Manufacturing Unit at Sipahpur, Muzaffarpur through its Director, Sri Shyam
Sundar Bajoria, aged about 51 years (Male), son of Om Prakash Bajoria,
resident of Sikandarpur, Near Rani Sati Mandir, Muzaffarpur, P.S.
Muzaffarpur Sadar, District Muzaffarpur. ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board (now M/s. Bihar State Power (Holding)
Company Limited), Vidyut Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its
Chairman.
2. The Member (Technical), Bihar State Electricity Board (Holding) Company
(now M/s. Bihar State Power Limited), Vidyut Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Chief Engineer-cum-Senior Electric Inspector, Department of Energy,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board,
(now North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited), Muzaffarpur.
5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board (now
M/s. Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited.), Electric Supply
Circle, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 22-06-2026
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated
20.05.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Patna
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned PDJ’ or the ‘Commercial
Court’), in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 08/1999,
whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
2/24
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as
amended up to date and hereinafter called the ‘Act of 1996’)
challenging the additional award dated 01.12.1998 passed under
Section 33 of the Act of 1996, has been dismissed.
Brief Facts of the Case
2. The appellant in the present case is a public limited
company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956. It is engaged in the business of production of iron and steel
ingots, billets, rods, etc., in its factory at Ahiyapur in the district of
Muzaffarpur. For the purpose of running its factory, the appellant
had applied for grant of electricity connection with the respondent
and the respondent executed an agreement dated 06.10.1998 for
supply of electricity with contract demand of 1500 KVA with
effect from 02.04.1990. The officers of the respondents conducted
a surprise inspection in the factory premises of the appellant.
Various irregularities were noticed and there was alleged theft of
electricity, the electricity supply in the factory of the appellant was
immediately disconnected by the respondent and a First
Information Report alleging theft of electricity was also lodged.
The appellant challenged this action of the respondent in the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in its Civil Writ Jurisdiction. CWJC
No. 6175 of 1995 was registered. On record, there is no further
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
3/24
information about the said theft case. The main prayer of the writ
petitioner was for a direction to restore the electricity connection.
3. It is stated that the Hon’ble Court vide order dated
22.01.1996 passed in CWJC No. 6175 of 1995 remanded the
matter back to the respondent regarding billing and restoration of
electricity connection but no step was taken by the respondents. It
is further stated that this Court vide order dated 28.02.1996
directed the Chairman of the Board to take a decision within the
time fixed by the Hon’ble Court. The Chairman passed an order
dated 15.05.1996 after considering the two experts’ reports. A
supplementary energy bill dated 13.09.1995 amounting to Rs.
39,41,61,040/- was raised, as the respondent refused to restore the
electricity supply to the appellant, the appellant, being aggrieved
by the order dated 15.05.1996 passed by the respondent Chairman
of the erstwhile Electricity Board, preferred a fresh writ
application being CWJC No. 5812 of 1996 seeking quashing of the
order dated 15.05.1996.
4. In the third round of litigation in CWJC No. 5812 of
1996, with the consent of the parties, the Hon’ble High Court
referred the subject matter of the writ application to an Arbitral
Tribunal comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Sahay, a former
Judge of this Court. The learned Arbitrator was to be assisted by
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
4/24
two technical experts. Shri Umesh Chandra Verma, Head of the
Department of Electrical Engineer, MIT Muzaffarpur was a
nominee of the appellant whereas Shri Bindeshwari Prasad Singha
(in short ‘B.P. Singha’) (Member-Distribution Retired) was
nominee of the respondent. The parties agreed that the arbitral
proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Act of
1996.
5. In course of the arbitration proceeding, the learned
Arbitral Tribunal framed as many as six issues for adjudication,
which are as follows:-
“(i) Capacity of the Transformer duly sanctioned by
the authority of Electricity Department as on the
date of raid was done,
(ii) Capacity of Transformer as found on the date of
raid,
(iii) Whether the load of Transformer will have
relevance or connection while calculating the Tariff,
(iv) What should be the rate of Tariff to be realized
from the company by the Board and which of the
provisions of Tariff will apply to the instant case,
(v) What should be the period and from what date
the Board is entitled to realize the bill, and
(vi) Whether the Board was justified in
disconnecting the power to the appellant.”
6. After taking into consideration the materials available
on the record, the learned Arbitral Tribunal recorded in its
concluding paragraph as under:-
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
5/24
“(i) 1500 KVA demand of power will be chargeable
from the date of electricity connection, i.e.
02.04.1990 to 31.07.1995, as per the first agreement,
(ii) 2500 KVA (1500 KVA + 1000 KVA) demand of
power will be chargeable from 01.08.1995 to
03.08.1995 (3 days), as per the first and second
agreements,
(iii) Additional demand of 2676 KVA will be
chargeable for a period of 177 days (i.e. first part of
180 days),
(iv) Additional demand of 1676 KVA will be
chargeable for the last period of 3 days (i.e. the
second part of 180 days),
(v) Energy (KWH) will be calculated according to
clause 15.2 (b) (ii) of the Tariff on special terms and
conditions of supply wherein load factor of 30% and
power factor of 85% are stated,
(vi) Board will charge any other amount remaining
unpaid so far according to the Tariff imposed at the
time viz. annual minimum guarantee, etc.”
7. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned
Arbitral Tribunal had passed the award dated 04.10.1998 by
relying upon the reports of the two experts, namely Mr. Verma and
Mr. Singha. There was no ambiguity or error of any nature, either
clerical or arithmetical and there was no requirement of
interpretation of any part of the award as according to the
appellant the award was complete in all respect and binding on the
parties.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
6/24
Developments subsequent to the award dated 04.10.1998
(referred to as the ‘original award’)
8. The appellant did not challenge the original award
dated 04.10.1998 and admittedly they decided to settle the dispute
by accepting the award but the respondent company preferred an
application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 on 05.11.1998
before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. A copy of the application
dated 05.11.1998 seeking correction in the original award has been
enclosed as Annexure ‘P-2’. It is the case of the respondent that on
page ‘29’ and ‘30’ of the award, the learned Arbitrator had given a
direction after holding that Clause ‘16.9’ of the tariff is applicable
but in the last portion of the award, the direction to draw fresh bill
is not in consonance with the directions already issued in the
earlier part of the original award. It is stated in the application
under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 that the two directions in the
award are almost contradictory, hence, they would require an
interpretation so as to correct the computation errors which has
cropped in as a result of direction no. 1 on page 32 of the original
award.
9. It is contended on behalf of the respondents in the
application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 that as per
directions given at page ‘29’ and ‘30’ of the award, the term ‘Load’
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
7/24
(L) of 86.9 has to be taken as the total capacity of transformer
tested and found in the laboratories of MIT and CRITL
immediately after the raid but at page ‘32’ in direction (i), the
Board has been directed to charge ‘L’ on the basis of contract
demand. It is also stated that in the award that learned Arbitrator
had held that the excess capacity of the transformer will amount to
theft of electricity energy. The respondents contended that due to
the aforesaid two directions, an error in computation is coming. On
the very face of the record, direction at page ‘32’ appears to be an
error. At the same time, it is also not in consonance with the
findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrators at page ‘29’ and ‘30’
of the award.
10. The respondents contended that at page ‘32’ of the
award, the specific direction in the last portion, as to how it is to be
calculated is creating confusion in coming to correct computation
errors.
11. The application further stated that for the purposes of
computing the period of theft, the Board has filed the documents
showing the consumption of energy vis-a-vis the production of the
consumption of energy on the basis of per MT billet and taking
that difference, the Board has calculated the period and these
documents have not even been looked into by the learned
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
8/24
Arbitrator while giving the award and while computing on the
formula of clause 16.9.
Opposition to the application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996
12. The application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996
was opposed by the appellant. It was contended that the prayer
made and the issues raised in the application dated 05.11.1998 is
beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33(1) of the Act of 1996.
The respondents contended that there is no contradiction in the
award and there is no requirement of any correction.
13. The learned Arbitral Tribunal considered the rival
submissions and passed an additional award dated 01.12.1998. A
copy of the additional award dated 01.12.1998 has been brought
on record as Annexure ‘P-4’ to the memorandum of appeal. The
learned Tribunal allowed the application under Section 33(1) of
the Act of 1996. The direction given in the original award at page
‘32’ has been modified.
14. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the additional
award (Annexure ‘P/4’), the appellant preferred an application
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 challenging the additional
award. The learned Principal District Judge, Patna, being the
Commercial Court duly constituted under Section 3 of the
Commercial Court Act, 2015, entertained, heard and disposed of
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
9/24
the application by refusing to interfere with the additional award.
According to the learned Commercial Court, the appellant was not
able to make out the elements of any of the grounds mentioned in
sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of Section 34 of the Act of
1996. The learned Court held that the limited and extremely
circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act
is not getting satisfied in this case in order to set aside the
impugned award. The Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal had
decided the dispute within the four corners of the agreement and
documents provided thereto between the parties and the technical
reports and the findings are clear. No patent illegality or absurdity
or perversity could be found in the additional award. This
additional award came to be challenged before the learned
Commercial Court, Patna presided over by the Principal District
Judge by way of an application under Section 34 of the Act of
1996. The learned Commercial Court has vide the impugned order
dated 20.05.2025 refused to allow the application. No patent
illegality could be found in the additional award. The appellant has
challenged the additional award as well as the order of the learned
Commercial Court, Patna in the present appeal.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
10/24
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
15. Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel for the
appellant, has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to hold that the court acting under Section 34 and Section
37 of the Act of 1996 has ample power to set aside an award which
suffers from patent illegality. It is submitted that power to set aside
the award includes the power to modify if the award is severable to
the extent modification is required. Learned counsel relies upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gayatri
Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limitedreported in
(2025) 7 SCC 1.
16. It is submitted that the original award despite having
not been prepared strictly in terms of the tariff of 1993, was
accepted by the appellant in order to settle the dispute. The
appellant did not challenge the award with sole intent that the
dispute will come to an end. The Power Company filed a petition
under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 (Annexure ‘P-2’) which was
not for rectification or correction of any typographical error rather
the company sought clarification and interpretation of the award.
The submission is that the petition (Annexure ‘P-2’) was beyond
the scope of Section 33 of the Act of 1996.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
11/24
17. Learned counsel submits that the primary thrust of
the application under Section 33 was the contradiction in the
award at page ‘29’ and ‘30’ thereof. It is submitted that at page
‘29’, the learned Arbitrator in complete agreement with Mr
Singha’s report confirmed that the calculation has to be done for:-
(i) 177 days prior to 31.07.1995 at sanctioned load
1500 KVA and transformer capacity at 2250 KVA
and
(ii) for three days i.e. 01.08.1995 to 04.08.1995 for
sanctioned load of 2500 KVA and transformer
capacity at 3750 KVA.
18. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator
categorically observed while rejecting the stand of the expert
namely Mr. Verma who was representing appellant and said that
further calculation made my Mr. Singha is to be adopted which is
manifest from the opening paragraph at page ‘30’ of the award.
Mr. Singha’s finding with regard to unauthorised extraction is at
page ‘54’ to ‘56’ and summary has been culled out at page ‘62’ of
the award.
19. It is submitted that the total transformer capacity was
6265 KVA as per the test lab, the report of Mr. Singha and report
of Mr. Verma. The mode of calculation for additional chargeable
demand based on the transformer capacity has been culled out by
Mr. Singha in accordance with the Tariff 1993 which is manifest
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
12/24
from page ‘55-56’ of the award, which is Mr. Singha’s report
exclusively. Since a consumer is entitled to have transformer 150%
of the contract demand, by back calculation Mr Singha arrived at
the contract demand that consumer could have, which was
calculated at 4176 KVA. Since 150% of 4176 comes to 6264 KVA,
therefore the additional chargeable demand which the consumer
could have availed unauthorisedly was calculated as 4176 KVA
less 1500 KVA (4176-1500= 2726). 1500 KVA was deducted, as
the consumer was having sanctioned contract demand of 1500
KVA during 177 days. Thus, it is submitted that the additional
chargeable demand was arrived at by Mr. Singha for the purposes
of calculation at 2726 KVA for 177 days. Similarly, for three days
when sanctioned contract demand was 2500 KVA, the back
calculation of additional contract demand has been taken as 4176
KVA less 2500 KVA (4176- 2500 KVA = 1676 KVA) as the
sanctioned contract demand for three days was 2500KVA. This
fact is further reiterated by Mr. Singha in his report by way of
summary which is at page ‘62’ of the award and more specifically
serial 3 and 4, thereof.
20. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator has
directed the Board to prepare fresh bills on the basis of the
findings and directions. The finding was on the basis of Mr.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
13/24
Singha’s report and the additional demand for 177 days for 2677
KVA (it should be 2676 KVA). It was thus contended that there
was no contradiction which the Board pointed out.
21. Learned counsel submits that Section 33 is a narrow
provision limited to correction of clerical, typographical and
computational error. It does not permit substantive review or
modification so far as interpretation is concerned. It is only upon
agreement between the parties, such request can be made to
Arbitrator with regard to interpretation of a specific point of the
award. In absence of such agreement, there cannot be any
interpretation and the scope of Section 33 is limited to correction
of clerical, typographical and computational errors only.
22. Learned counsel submits that a non-reasoned
additional award that too without taking assistance of the technical
experts in the given set of facts and in particular contrary to the
provisions of the tariff is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that
there is a distinction between Section 33 and 34 of the Act of 1996.
Section 33 provides for provides for correction and interpretation
of awards by the Arbitral Tribunal itself for computational, clerical
or typographical errors, or for making additional awards for
omitted claims, within 30 days. Section 34, on the other hand,
deals with setting aside awards on limited grounds and does not
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
14/24
permit a general modification of the award on merits. The
application under Section 33 is also time-bound. On these grounds,
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Commercial Court, Patna failed to appreciate that the additional
award suffered from patent illegality being beyond the scope of
Section 33 of the Act of 1996.
Stand of the Respondents
23. The appeal has been contested by learned counsel
for the respondents. Learned counsel has pointed out that some
clerical error occurred while passing the main award dated
04.10.1998. The main award was passed after taking into
consideration the reports of two technical experts appointed for
assisting the learned Arbitrator. It is submitted that none of the
ingredients of Section 34(2) or 34(2A) is present. The learned
Commercial Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the application
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
24. It is further submitted that the original award has
been accepted by the appellant and, therefore, the findings
contained therein have attained finality. Only in the last portion of
the original award a mistake in the nature of clerical error
occurred. In fact a direction to draw fresh bill on the basis
discussed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal was already given at
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
15/24
page ‘30’ of the award, therefore in last portion, the direction to
draw the fresh bill could not have gone differently. It was only a
mistake and correction of the same without touching the findings
and reasonings would be permissible.
Consideration
25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the records, this Court finds that the solitary issue which
arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the application
under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 preferred by the respondents
(Annexure ‘P/2’) would fit in within the scope of Section 33 of the
Act of 1996. It is an admitted position that the findings recorded
by the learned Tribunal in the original award have been accepted
by the appellant as no application for setting aside the said award
was ever preferred. At this stage, we would briefly take note of
some of the relevant provisions of the agreement between the
parties. It is this agreement which contains the basis of calculating
the tariff and the period when there is a load factor as have been
found by the two independent agencies. Clause ‘16.4’, ‘16.5’ and
‘16.9’ of the agreement read as under:-
“16.4.Transformer capacity, the transformer
capacity of HT and EHT consumers shall not be
more than 100% of the contract demand.
16.5. Surcharge for exceeding the contract
demand
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
16/24
If during any month in a financial year (April to
March next) the actual maximum demand of a
consumer exceeds 110% of the contract demand,
then the highest demand so recorded shall be
treated as the contract demand for that financial
year and the minimum base charges, both in respect
of maximum demand and energy charge shall be
payable on that basis.
16.9 Detection of unauthorized load
If at any time, the consumer is found exceeding the
contracted load without specific permission of the
Board, the Board may without prejudice to its other
rights under the agreement or under the provisions
of the Electricity Act, estimate the value of the
electrical energy. So extracted, consumed or used
shall be calculated as below and may also
disconnect the supply without notice:
I. Necessary assessment for compensation in the
following malpractise and theft of energy cases
shall be made as below:
(a) In case of use of energy through artificial means
or by adopting any appliance
(b) In case of using energy by creating obstruction
in running of meters
Or interfering with the system of supply or wires
etc.
(c) In case of dishonest obstruction of electrical
energy or running of energy when supply is
disconnected.
The formula given is as follows:-
Units Assessed = L X H X H X D
L = is the connected load in KW.
H = is the average number of hours per day if
supply is made available distribution mains feeding
the consumer.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
17/24
D = is the number of days for which the pilferage
took place which can be established from
production of satisfactory evidence by the
consumer. In case there is no possible evidence to
establish the period, this factor be taken equivalent
to 180 or the number of days elapsed from the date
on connection/ installation of meter till the date
detention of pilferage which is less.
F = is the Denotes the factors for the categories
noted below:
1. For Domestic : F=0.20
2. For commercial : F=0.40
3. For small and medium up to 75 KW : F=0.50
4. For large and heavy with load above 75 KW :
F=0.75”
26. Having considered the aforementioned clauses of the
agreement, the learned Arbitrator held that in a case where a
company has permissible load of 1000 KVA but it has utilised
5000 KVA then clause ‘16.9’ will be attracted and the
methodology of realising tariff mentioned in clause ‘16.9’ is meant
to charge those customers who utilise extra load without the
sanction of the Board.
27. The learned Arbitrator held that in this case the
Board is empowered to charge the tariff on the basis of the test
reports submitted by the independent bodies. The learned Tribunal
rejected the challenge made on behalf of the appellant to the
correctness of the report, especially the test done by the MIT,
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
18/24
Muzaffarpur. The learned Tribunal has referred the report
submitted by Mr. Verma and Mr. Singha. The relevant part of the
findings and observations of the learned Arbitrator present at page
‘29’and ‘30 in the original award are being extracted hereunder for
a ready reference:-
“……. Mr. Verma in his report, has stated as follows
:-
The position in the premises of the company on
the date of raid were as follows :-
(i) A/B Switch open.
(ii) 330 KVA line remove from the line placing
the consumer in the category of section A(2) of the
16.9, therefore this section may be applied.
He has not discussed any thing detail and the
reasons given for the application of Clause 16.9 but
Mr. Singha has discussed this in great detail and I
am also in complete agreement that calculation has
to be done under clause 16.9 of the tariff for a total
period of 180 days. This 180 days will have to be
divided into two parts.
(i) 177 days prior to 31.07.95. Sanction Load=
1500 KVA and transformer capacity= 2250 KVA.
(ii) 01.08.95 to 04.08.95 sanctioned load of
2500 KVA and capacity found 3750 KVA Mr. Singha
has made further calculation for 177 days, which
comes to 2677 KVA and for three days 1676 KVA
and he has held that the calculation should be done
under clause 16.9(i) of the tariff. On this point, Mr.
Varma has taken a contrary view and has stated that
drawing of such power must have taken only after
31.07.95 because of the inspection and meter
reading on that day by the Employees of the board
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
19/24
and they found the meter line and A/B Switch etc.
intact. According to him mere Statement on behalf
of the Board that their officers and staff were in
connivance with the company will not be enough
and therefore, tariff under Clause 16.9 should be
calculated only after 31.07.95 but he has not
mentioned as to what will be the tariff prior to
31.07.95. He has simply stated that there is no
material/evidence to show that illegal extraction of
electricity was going on even prior to 31.07.95. I do
not agree with him because there are materials and
in this connection, I will refer once again to the
reports of CRITL and MIT, Muzaffarpur and the
details and specification of transformer given by the
company and this has been discussed earlier. I
therefore in complete agreement with Mr. Singha
hold that the Board is entitled to assess the tariff for
the two periods mentioned above on the total KVA
found in the test reports. The board should
accordingly prepare a fresh bill on the basis of the
finding and directions given above. ….”
28. In the aforementioned background, when we look
into the application under Section 33 (Annexure ‘P/2’), it is found
that the necessity to file this application arose only because in the
last portion of the award a direction has been given that “(1) The
Board shall prepare a fresh bill one for the period of 177 days prior
to 31/7/95 on the maximum transformer capacity of 2500 KVA and
for three days from 1/8/95 on the maximum capacity of 3750
KVA…”
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
20/24
29. The respondents are correct in saying that the
directions given in the last portion of the award is contradictory to
the direction given at page ‘29’ and ‘30’ of the award. We have
extracted the relevant portion from page ‘29’ and ‘30’ of the award
hereinabove. Those are based on discussions and materials referred
by the learned Arbitrator.
30. Coming to the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the
Act of 1996, we first reproduce Section 33 hereunder:-
“33. Correction and interpretation of
award; additional award.—(1) Within
thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral
award, unless another period of time has
been agreed upon by the parties—
(a) a party, with notice to the other party,
may request the arbitral tribunal to
correct any computation errors, any
clerical or typographical errors or any
other errors of a similar nature occurring
in the award;
(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party,
with notice to the other party, may
request the arbitral tribunal to give an
interpretation of a specific point or part
of the award.
(2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the
request made under sub-section (1) to be
justified, it shall make the correction or give
the interpretation within thirty days from the
receipt of the request and the interpretation
shall form part of the arbitral award.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
21/24
(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any
error of the type referred to in clause (a) of
sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within
thirty days from the date of the arbitral
award.
(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a
party with notice to the other party, may
request, within thirty days from the receipt of
the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to
make an additional arbitral award as to
claims presented in the arbitral proceedings
but omitted from the arbitral award.
(5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the
request made under sub-section (4) to be
justified, it shall make the additional arbitral
award within sixty days from the receipt of
such request.
(6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if
necessary, the period of time within which it
shall make a correction, give an
interpretation or make an additional arbitral
award under sub-section (2) or sub-section
(5).
(7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or
interpretation of the arbitral award or to an
additional arbitral award made under this
section.”
31. On a bare reading of Section 33 of the Act of 1996
would show that it permits a party, with notice to the other party, to
request the Arbitral Tribunal to correct any computation errors, any
clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
22/24
nature occurring in the award. To this Court, it appears that the
cluster of words such as “any computation errors, any clerical or
typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature
occurring in the award” are to be given a purposive interpretation
in the context in which this provision has been incorporated in the
statute. In a world of commercial exigencies this provision has to
be interpreted in such a way that it serves the purpose behind
incorporating Section 33 of the Act of 1996. It is very much clear
from the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal at page ‘29’ and
‘30’ of the original award that the learned Tribunal was in
complete agreement with Mr. Singha’s report. The Tribunal
referred the reports of CRITL and MIT, Muzaffarpur and the
details and specification of transformer given by the Company.
The learned Arbitral Tribunal held that the Board is entitled to
assess the tariff for the two periods on the total KVA found in the
test reports and the Board should accordingly prepare a fresh bill
on the basis of the finding and directions given above. In fact, in
the original award the learned Tribunal has very unambiguously
held that the Board is entitled to assess the tariff on the total KVA
found in the test reports. Thus, in the last portion of the award, the
direction of the learned Tribunal to the Board to prepare a fresh
bill (1) for the period of 177 days prior to the 31.07.1995 on the
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
23/24
maximum transformer capacity of 2500 KVA and for three days
from 1/8/95 on the maximum capacity of 3750 KVA is
contradictory to the first direction, therefore, the respondents
rightly moved before the learned Arbitral Tribunal for a
correction/clarification.
32. We have further noticed from the additional award
(Annexure ‘P/4’) that the learned Arbitral Tribunal found that the
Board wanted certain clarification because of the mistake which
had crept in the award regarding mentioning of the figures at two
places and due to that difficulty was being felt in the preparation of
the bill. The Arbitral Tribunal having found that there was an error
which was required to be corrected, clarified that the direction
given by the Tribunal at page ‘32’ of the award should be read as
follows:-
“(1) The Board shall prepare a fresh bill for the
period of 177 days upto 31.07.95 and 3 days from
1.8.95 on the basis of total KVAs, that is 6265, as
given in the two test reports and accepted by me.”
33. We are of the view that the learned Arbitral Tribunal
has only corrected the error which had crept in the last portion of
the order which was apparent on the face of it. The learned
Commercial Court, Patna has taken a correct view of the matter by
refusing to interfere with the additional award.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.6 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
24/24
34. In result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is
dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
SUSHMA2/Rishi-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 16.06.2026
Uploading Date 22.06.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.