Case Title:- INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IHBAS) vs. MI2C SECURITIES AND FACILITIES PVT LTD
Citation:- 2025:DHC:9818-DB
Date:- 07.11.2025
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that a clerical or typographical mistake in an arbitral award can be corrected even after the 30-day time limit under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the error was made by the arbitral tribunal itself.
- The case involved a contract between Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) and M/s MI2C Securities and Facilities Pvt. Ltd., a company providing security and facility management services.
- The arbitral tribunal gave an award in favour of MI2C, but it incorrectly mentioned the respondent’s name in the title of the award. MI2C later filed an application under Section 33 to correct the error, but it was dismissed as being filed beyond the 30-day limitation period.
- The contractor then approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under Section 34, and a Single Judge allowed the correction of the mistake. IHBAS challenged this order, arguing that the 30-day time limit under Section 33 was mandatory and could not be relaxed.
- The Hon’ble Court dismissed IHBAS’s appeal, holding that the error was made by the tribunal, not by the parties. The Hon’ble Court relied on the Latin maxim “Actus curiae neminem gravabit” meaning an act of the court shall prejudice no one, and said a party should not suffer for a tribunal’s mistake.
- It also cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Neeraj Kumar Sainy, which held that courts must restore parties to the position they would have been in, had there been no mistake by the court. The Hon’ble Court clarified that Section 33’s time limit is strict, but can be relaxed in exceptional cases like this, where the mistake came from the tribunal itself.
- Finally, the Hon’ble Court observed that the correction did not change the award’s substance or the parties’ rights, and was merely to fix a technical error in the title.
