Nikunj Bindal & Tanmay Singh, B.B.A. LLB (Hons.) JGLS, O.P Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
Arbitration is frequently cited as having the advantage of finality. But what happens if an award contains a clear error or irregularity? Typically, institutional rules and national arbitration laws provide a limited mechanism for addressing such issues. Requests for correction, interpretation, and additional awards are examples of post-award reliefs in the arbitral process. These remedies were conceived with the understanding that even final awards could be derived by errors and omissions. The ability to seek correction of arbitral awards allows parties to avoid awards that are unsuitable or unenforceable due to their inconsistency with their circumstances or intentions. Corrections may be necessary for a variety of reasons, ranging from minor technical or clerical errors to more serious errors and omissions. It could be argued that the importance of this post-award remedy has been overlooked.
This paper focuses on the correction and interpretation of the arbitral awards. It gives a brief gist of the interpretation provision and explains the legislative intent behind the provision, followed by the detailed explanation and analysis of the grounds for the correction of the awards evaluated in contrast with several international case laws. The paper further proceeds to the timeline for the correction and interpretation of the awards and the following defines in detail and evaluate the scope of the “right of the parties to be heard”. Furthermore, the paper describes as to where the jurisdictional authority lies for the correction of the award.
