Mahesh Chandra, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff M/s. Anant Raj Agencies has filed this suit under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act with a request that defendant No. 2 arbitrator should be directed to file award in court and on such filing this award be made a rule of court and decree be drawn accordingly. On service of notice the arbitrator filed his award dated 309-1985, notice of filing of the award was accepted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on 21 November, 1985 but no objections were filed by the plaintiff. Notice of filing of the award was served upon defendant No. 1. Delhi Development Authority on 3rd December, 1985 and it filed objections (1. A. No. 173 of 1986) against the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on 2nd January, 1986. The objections were opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. The following issues were framed vide orders dated 29-9-1986 : "1. Whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings ? 2. Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the award ? 3. Whether the award was liable to be set aside ? 4. Relief. " ( 2 ) IT was agreed between the parties that evidence on these issues would be recorded on affidavits and accordingly objector filed its affidavit in the first instance and then counter-affidavit was filed. I have beared the learned counsel for the parties and have gone throngh the record. ( 3 ) ON going through the record it was found that there is some confusion with regard to the contract number and particulars of the matter referred to the arbitrator vis-a-vis the contract filed before arbitrator and particulars given in the award of the adjudicated matter by the arbitrator In consequence notices were ordered to be issued to counsel for parties to clarify this situation and I have gone through the clarification but I do not find myself persuaded to accept it. The work which was referred to arbitrator was "construction of 1264, DU s at Sheikh Sarai (948 LIG +316 Janta) SH Group III of 256 Qrs. (144 LIG+48 Janta) i/c internal and external services vide Agreement No. 1/hdxv/sd1/1977-78". The work which was referred to arbitrator was "construction of 1264, DU s at Sheikh Sarai (948 LIG +316 Janta) SH Group III of 256 Qrs. (144 LIG+48 Janta) i/c internal and external services vide Agreement No. 1/hdxv/sd1/1977-78". As against this the name of work given in the award is "construction of 1264 DU s at Sheikh Sarai (948 LIG+48 Janta) i/c internal and external services" vide agreement No. 1/hdxv/sdi 1977-78. In the clarification application it is admitted that agreement number filed before the arbitrator on the basis whereof the award has been given is 1/hd XV/sd-1/1977-78 asagaimtl/hdxxv/ SD 1/1977-78 given in the reference. This contradiction and difference in the name of work and particulars of contract is also not disputed by the parties but it is alleged to be a clerical error which can be corrected by this Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to Section 15 of Arbitration Act which reads as under : "15. The Court may by order modify or correct an award : (a) where it appears that a part of the award is upon a matter not referred to arbitration and inch part can be separated from the other part and does not affect the decision on the matter referred; or (b) where the award is imperfect in form, or contains any obvious error which can be amended without affecting such decision; or (c) where the award contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. "in view of Section 15 it is urged that clerical error should be corrected by this Court. I do not think this is a case of mere clerical error; these mistakes rather go to the root of the award. The power of the Court to correct awards is limited by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15 of the Arbitration Act. The Court cannot make substantial modifications in awards and if it does, it travels beyond its powers. Whether there are omissions or defects in the award, the court cannot correct these. Recourse would have to be had to Section 16 of the arbitration Act and the award would have to be remitted. Such defects and omissions cannot be corrected by the court itself. It is Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which applies to the situation in hand. Recourse would have to be had to Section 16 of the arbitration Act and the award would have to be remitted. Such defects and omissions cannot be corrected by the court itself. It is Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which applies to the situation in hand. Section 16 of the Arbitration Act provides as under : "16. (1) The Court may from time to time remit the award or any matter referred to arbitration to the arbitrators or umpire fop reconsideration upon such terms as it thinks fit : (a) where the award has left undetermined any of the matters referred to arbitration, or whether it determines any matter not referred to. arbitration and such matter cannot be separated without affecting the determination of the matters referred; or (b) where the award is so indefinite as to be incapable of execution or; (c) whether an objection to the legality of the award is apparent upon the face of it. (2) Whether an award is remitted under Sub-section (i) the Court shall fix the time within which the arbitrator or umpire shall submit his decision to the Court : Provided that any time so fixed may be extended by subsequent order of the Court. (3) Ana-ward remitted under Sub-section (1} shall become void on the failure of the arbitrator or umpire to reconsider it and submit his decision within the time fixed " ( 4 ) I, therefore, hold that Section 16 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act coroes into play and consequently it has become necessary to remit this award to the arbitrator for re-consideration on this aspect of the matter and tor making fresh award after reconciling the differences. It is difficult so accept the contention of the leared counsed for the petitioner that it is only a clerical mistake or error from an accidental slip or omission. In the circumstances the award is remitted back to the arbitrator with these directions that the arbitrator shall make his award afresh within six months hereof clarifying the ambiguity and Arbitration proceedings record be also returned to the arbitrator. I As as are filed. Accordingly suit is disposed of. No order as to costs.