Best Fixing Mistakes in an Arbitration Award Lawyer

Arbitration awards are written by people, and people make mistakes: a figure added wrongly, a party's name misspelt, a date typed incorrectly, an interest rate stated in one paragraph and contradicted in another. Sometimes an award simply forgets to deal with one of the claims. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act gives a quick, cheap way to fix these problems without going to court.

This page is for any party that has received an award and spotted an error or a gap. In short: within 30 days of receiving the award, write to the tribunal, with a copy to the other side, asking it to correct the error, to interpret a specific point if both sides agree, or to make an additional award on a claim that was presented but not decided. The tribunal decides within 30 days (60 days for an additional award), and can extend that time if needed.

A Section 33 request is not a way to re-argue the case. Used properly, it saves months of court proceedings over mistakes that the tribunal itself can fix in an afternoon.

Is this your situation?

The three kinds of request

What counts as a correctable error

Section 33(1)(a) covers errors in computation, clerical or typographical errors, and other errors of a similar nature. The common thread is that the error is obvious on the face of the award and does not require the tribunal to reconsider its decision. Examples are a total that does not match the figures that make it up, an interest calculation that uses the wrong start date stated elsewhere in the award, a party's name misspelt, a wrong contract number, or an operative paragraph that awards ₹45 lakh when the reasoning clearly arrives at ₹54 lakh.

What is not correctable is a change of mind. A request asking the tribunal to reconsider evidence, accept an argument it rejected, or award a head of claim it refused, goes beyond Section 33. Tribunals routinely reject such requests, and courts have said that the power of correction is not a power of review. If you think the tribunal decided wrongly, the remedy is a challenge under Section 34, not a correction request.

How to make a Section 33 request

Time and typical cost range

Our fees are agreed in writing at the start, stage by stage, and are not linked to the outcome.

Documents needed

Examples of requests

Additional awards for missed claims

If a party presented a claim during the arbitration and the award does not deal with it, Section 33(4) allows that party, within 30 days of receiving the award and with notice to the other party, to request the tribunal to make an additional award on it. If the tribunal considers the request justified, it makes the additional award within 60 days.

The claim must have been presented: pleaded in the statement of claim or counter-claim, or properly added by amendment. A claim mentioned for the first time after the award cannot be the subject of an additional award. Courts also distinguish between a claim that was overlooked and one that the tribunal considered and rejected, even if the rejection is not well reasoned. In the second case, the remedy is a Section 34 challenge.

An additional award is important because a Section 34 court cannot itself decide a claim the tribunal omitted. If you do not ask for an additional award, the omitted claim may be lost or need a fresh arbitration.

Section 33 and the challenge deadline

The proviso to Section 34(3) says that where a request under Section 33 has been made, the three-month period for challenging the award runs from the date on which the request was disposed of by the tribunal. This means that a genuine Section 33 request extends the time to challenge.

Courts have warned against abuse. In NHAI v T. Younis (2026), the Supreme Court observed that a Section 33 application filed only to extend time, without a real error to correct, may attract exemplary costs, and that courts can look at whether the application was genuine. If you are considering both a correction request and a Section 34 challenge, make the correction request a real one, limited to real errors, and prepare the challenge in parallel.

Where the other party makes a Section 33 request, the time for your challenge also runs from its disposal, since the award is not final until the request is decided. Keep a careful record of the dates.

Laws that apply

How we work

We are a litigation and advisory practice led by Advocate BK Singh, with offices in Dwarka (New Delhi) and Vaishali (Ghaziabad). This is what you can expect:

• Fast review: every award checked for errors as soon as it arrives.
• Genuine requests only: no misuse of Section 33 to buy time.
• Clear schedules: each error set out with paragraph and record references.
• Deadline tracking: both the 30-day and the Section 34 limits.
• Written fee terms: agreed stage by stage, never linked to the outcome.

Mistakes with Section 33

Checking an award as soon as it arrives

We review every award we receive within the first week, with the 30-day Section 33 limit in mind. Our checklist covers: the names, addresses and descriptions of the parties; the contract and invoice numbers referred to; each head of claim and counter-claim, and whether each has been decided; the arithmetic of every table and total; the interest rate, period and start date for each head, both pre-award and post-award; the costs order, and whether it states who pays what; and whether the operative part matches the reasoning.

We also check that the award is signed by the arbitrators, dated, states the place of arbitration, and gives reasons, as Section 31 requires. A missing signature or a missing date is not a Section 33 matter, but it may affect the date of receipt and the challenge timeline.

Interest errors: the most common problem

In our experience, the most frequent errors in awards concern interest. An award may state an interest rate in the reasoning and a different one in the operative part, use a start date that does not match the date of the invoice or the notice, or fail to say whether post-award interest is simple or compound. Where the reasoning makes the intended figure clear, the error is usually correctable as a computational or clerical error.

Where the award is silent on post-award interest, Section 31(7)(b) supplies a default rate of 2% above the current rate of interest on the date of the award. That is not a matter for correction; it applies by law. Where the award awards interest despite a contractual bar, that is a matter for challenge, not correction. See challenge an award.

Responding to the other side's Section 33 request

If the other party makes a request, the tribunal will usually invite your comments. Read the request carefully. A request that goes beyond computation and clerical errors, asking the tribunal to reconsider evidence or reduce an amount it deliberately awarded, should be opposed on the ground that Section 33 does not permit review. Point out where the award shows the tribunal considered the point.

If the request is genuine, it may be sensible to agree to the correction to save time. Either way, remember that the time for your own challenge, if you are considering one, now runs from the disposal of the request.

Institutional arbitrations

In institutional arbitrations, the institution's rules usually contain correction and interpretation provisions that work alongside Section 33. DIAC, IIAC and MCIA rules allow requests within a stated period after receipt, with comments from the other party and decisions within fixed times. The SIAC Rules 2025 and ICC Rules 2021 have similar provisions, and under the ICC Rules the correction must be scrutinised by the Court before it is issued, which adds a little time.

Because Section 33 allows the parties to agree a different period, the institutional rules may change the 30-day limit. Check the rules that apply before relying on the statutory period.

MSME council awards

Awards by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Councils acting as arbitral tribunals under Section 18 of the MSMED Act are governed by the Arbitration Act, so Section 33 applies to them as well. Errors in MSME awards often concern interest calculations at three times the bank rate, compounded monthly under Section 16. A request to the council to correct a miscalculated interest figure, supported by a clear computation, is usually much faster than a challenge. See MSME interest calculator.

Correction after the tribunal's mandate ends

Section 32(3) says that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates with the termination of the proceedings, subject to Section 33 and Section 34(4). This means the tribunal keeps a limited power to correct, interpret or add to its award within the Section 33 time limits, but once those have passed, it has no power left. A request made after the 30 days, or a correction issued after the time for decision has run out without an extension, may be outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

If an error is discovered late, the options narrow. A clerical error that is obvious may sometimes be dealt with by the execution court reading the award as a whole, or by the Section 34 court using its limited power to correct apparent errors after Gayatri Balasamy (2025). But these routes are less certain than a timely Section 33 request.

Section 34(4): the court sending the award back

Separately from Section 33, Section 34(4) allows the court hearing a challenge, on a party's request, to adjourn the proceedings for a period so that the tribunal can resume the proceedings or take other action to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award. This is used where the defect is curable by the tribunal itself, for example where the award lacks reasons on a point, or failed to deal with an argument.

The Supreme Court has said that Section 34(4) is meant for curable defects in reasoning, not for a fresh decision on the merits (I-Pay Clearing Services v ICICI Bank, 2022). For an award holder facing a challenge on the ground of missing reasons, asking the court to use Section 34(4) can save the award from being set aside.

Corrected awards and enforcement

When a correction or additional award is issued, it forms part of the award. For enforcement, file the original award and the correction or additional award together, so that the execution court has the complete decision. Where the correction changes an amount, calculate post-award interest on the corrected figure from the date provided in the award. Make sure the certified copies used in execution and in any Section 34 proceedings include the correction.