- (1.) The decree-holder has filed E.C. 70 of 2008 for execution of award dated 14th August, 2007 while E.C. 166 of 2008 has been filed for execution of Award dated 14th August, 2007 as corrected on 5th August, 2008. Although the Award was passed on 14th August, 2007 reasons in respect thereof was given subsequently.
(2.) The case of the decree-holder is that the charter party agreement of 12th January, 2005 contained an arbitration clause. As disputes arose between the parties, an arbitrator was appointed who after giving notice to the parties proceeded to decide the issues and passed an Award on 14th August, 2007. As the said Award was not challenged, after the limitation period of 120 days the same was put into execution. An affidavit was filed by the judgment debtors wherein the existence of the charter party dated 12th January, 2005 was disputed. As the said was a typographical error steps were taken by the decreeholder to correct the said typographical error and steps have been taken by the arbitrator to issue a correction to the Award dated 14th August, 2007. In view of the correction to the Final Award dated 14th August, 2007 E.C. 166 of 2008 has been filed. 2. On 5th August, 2008 the only correction made in the award was in respect of the date of the charter party which had been mentioned as 12th January, 2005 and was corrected to 12th January, 2006. Neither the original award nor the corrected award has been challenged under Section 48(1) of the 1996 Act. No defence was filed before the arbitral Tribunal nor counter claim made. The only objection raised is that the correction has been made beyond 28 days stipulated under Section 57 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (English Act). In fact the time specified in Section 57 is not mandatory as will be evident from Schedule 1 of the English Act. Section 16(6) of the English Act deals with Constitution of the Tribunal by appointment of arbitrator by both parties, in default of such appointment a sole arbitrator is to be appointed under Section 17 of the English Act. There is no dispute of the existence of an arbitration agreement and the applicability of the Gencon form which has been accepted by both parties with certain riders included thereafter. The fixture note also establishes the agreement between the parties as held in Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs. Kola Sipping Limited, 2009 2 SCC 134.
(3.) Therefore, the arbitration clause is applicable and the award passed is justified.;