A dispute arose relating to recovery of 3648.80 grams of pure gold. Arbitration Clause was invoked. High Court appointed a Retired District Judge as Sole Arbitrator. Gyan Prakash Arya was directed, “return 3648.80 grams of pure gold within three months along with interest @18% per annum calculating value of gold at Rs. 740/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Forty) per gram from 24.07.2004 and up to date of delivery of quantity of gold. In alternative, pay, within three months, market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @18% per annum, calculating value of gold at Rs. 740/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Forty) per gram from 24.07.2004 till date of payment.”

Learned Arbitrator allowed a Section 33, 1996 Act, Application of M/s. Titan Industries Limited. Arbitral Award, dated 04/12/2010, was modified on 14/01/2011. Gyan Prakash Arya was directed, “return 3648.80 grams of pure gold within three months along with interest @18% per annum calculating value of gold at Rs. 740/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Forty) per gram from 24.07.2004 and up to date of delivery of quantity of gold. In alternative, pay, within three months, market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold at Rs. 20,747/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand, Seven Hundred Forty Seven) per 10 grams… along with interest @18% per annum from 24.07.2004 till date of payment.”

It cannot be said, there was any arithmetical and/or clerical error in Arbitral Award, dated 04/12/2010, passed by Learned Arbitrator. What was claimed in statement of claim was granted. Order, dated 14/01/2011, allowing a Section 33, 1996 Act, Application cannot be sustained. It is beyond scope and ambit of Section 33, 1996 Act. Arbitral Award, dated 04/12/2010, stands.

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Gyan Prakash Arya v. M/s. Titan Industries Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 6876 of 2021].

A characterisation of mode of interest, whether simple or compound, goes to Arbitrator’s assessment of equities and reflects a substantive determination on merits. It is neither a slip of the pen, nor an inadvertent arithmetical mistake, nor a clerical oversight that could be remedied under Section 33(1)(a). Commercial Court manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction in purporting to exercise powers under Section 33(1)(a). Commercial Court erred in substituting the words ‘compound interest’ in place of ‘simple interest’.

– Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewearge Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal Nos. 769-770 of 2026] decided on 26.05.2026.