- (1.) The Court: This review application is up for hearing and disposal. Parties have been heard.
(2.) On 2nd April, 2019 submissions were made on behalf of review applicant. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of review applicant submitted, prior to order dated 4th October, 2016 there was another appeal that arose out of execution proceeding. An application made in the execution case was disposed of on review applicant agreeing to accept Rs.80 lakhs but thereafter the award was not satisfied. Review applicant had preferred appeal, which was dealt with and disposed of by order dated 8th September, 2015 by co-ordinate appeal Bench. Next application in the execution case had passed in it, order dated 15th April, 2016, against which appeal and this review.
(3.) Mr. Dutta relied on following in said order dated 8th September, 2015 as is extracted and reproduced below:- "We have gone through the same. There is no provision in law empowering the Arbitrator to clarify his award on merits after the award has been declared. It is not a case of correction of typographical or clerical errors within 30 days of award on the joint applications of the parties as envisaged in Section 33. A Court cannot vest jurisdiction in the Arbitrator after he has become functus officio to clarify his award and that too on merits. Hence, the impugned order is without any authority of law and is void ab initio. No amount of consent by the parties can bestow life in a void order which is patently beyond jurisdiction and authority of law. Therefore, even if there was possibility to intervene under Section 33 or under Sub-Section 4 of Section 34 of the statute since such a situation was not in existence, we are of the opinion, reference to arbitration for clarification is nothing but asking an authority who lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. " ;