JUDGMENT : PER : HONORABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short as “the Act’ 1996”) is directed against the award of the Arbitral Appellate Tribunal dated 09.09.2021 and the judgment and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996. The appellants and respondent herein are referred as they are arrayed as parties in this appeal while referring to the facts of the case and the order passed by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal. 2. The contention is that the learned Court has erred in appreciating the fact that the appellate award dated 09.09.2021 suffers from patent illegality and that the supplementary award dated 12.10.2023 had been passed to correct the errors apparent on the record. Learned Court has, thus, erred in setting aside the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021, which is liable to be upheld while allowing the instant appeal. 3. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court: - (1) Gyan Prakash Arya vs. Titan Industries Limited, (2023) 1 SCC 153 . (2) Econ Piling Pte Ltd. and another vs. Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co. Ltd., (2010) SGHC 253. (3) Master Construction Co.(P) Ltd. vs State of Orissa and another, AIR 1966 SC 1047 . (4) Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others, (2003)1 SCC 197 . (5) Mellor vs. Swire, [L.R] 30 Ch.D. 239, (1885) 30 Ch.D 239(CA) 4. The facts relevant to the controversy at hand are that the respondent herein had authorized Appellant No. 2 as subbroker to carry out trades on the terminal of Appellant No.1. The agreement to this extent was executed on 07.09.2016. The dispute raised before the Arbitrator was pertaining to the alleged unauthorized transactions executed by the Appellant No.2 in the account of the respondent during the period between 25.02.2020 to 03.03.2020, which has caused financial loss to the respondent. The case of the respondent was that the appellant No.1 had unauthorisedly liquidated and realized the mutual fund investment of the respondent on the premise of covering the losses. The arbitral Tribunal held that the transactions made were to the knowledge of the respondent and were duly authorized transactions and had rejected the claims of the respondent. The case of the respondent was that the appellant No.1 had unauthorisedly liquidated and realized the mutual fund investment of the respondent on the premise of covering the losses. The arbitral Tribunal held that the transactions made were to the knowledge of the respondent and were duly authorized transactions and had rejected the claims of the respondent. The Tribunal has further allowed the counter claim of the appellants and directed the respondent to pay the regular ledger debit of Rs.1,44,49,610.96/- to the appellants. 5. The arbitral award dated 11.01.2021 was challenged in appeal by the respondent and the appellants did not raise any challenge in relation to the counter claim. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the transaction carried out by the appellant No.2 in the account of respondent No.2 were authorized and the appellants were entitled to the recovery claimed by it. However, the appellate arbitral Tribunal held that the appellants ought not to have redeemed mutual fund units in the manner that they did and though it has upheld the award and reaffirmed that all the transactions were authorised. 6. The appellate arbitral Tribunal vide award dated 09.09.2021 has allowed the appeal and set aside the arbitral award dated 11.01.2021 to the extent that it rejected the claim of the respondent to the redemption of units of mutual funds on 16.03.2021 and appropriate proceeds towards shortfall of margin. The direction was issued to the appellant herein to remit the said amount as described therein with interest of 6% per annum within 10 days from the date of receipt of the amount from 16.03.2021 till the date of refund on the amount appropriated by it. 7. While issuing the said directions, it was held that while there cannot be denial of right of respondent herein to have deposited for shortfall in the margin, but the appellants on their own could not have liquidated the assets of the respondent, which was not put in as collateral, however, urgent situation may be or specious it may look, as the assets belonging to the respondent and none other. Only because the original investment was made through the appellants, the appellants did not have right to redeem the units of mutual funds of the respondent. Only because the original investment was made through the appellants, the appellants did not have right to redeem the units of mutual funds of the respondent. After repeated opportunities to the appellants, they have failed to point out that the units of mutual funds were to be put in as collateral by respondent and sans that action of appellants in redeeming the units of mutual funds is devoid of merits and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The appellate arbitral tribunal has also referred to the Circular of Securities and Exchange Board of India (in short as “SEBI”) dated 27.08.2020 to record that though the trades by the appellant No.2 in the code of respondent was discretionary, but as per the Circular of SEBI for the trades executed by the appellant No.2, evidence was required to be produced by the appellant No.2, sub-broker of appellant No.1 of execution of trade with tacit approval of the respondent. The SEBI has directed that there should be evidence about the placement of order by the client and broker or sub-broker should not trade on behalf of the client, however good relations they may have. It was also noted that as far as the positions of Rs.9,18,677.78 squared off by the appellants, there is nothing pointed out by the respondent that there was no shortfall and inspite of this, shares were liquidated. The claim of the respondent to that extent was rejected holding that the respondent has failed to demonstrate the basic fact on this claim. 8. It was, thus, held by the appellate arbitral Tribunal that the arbitral award was perverse and untenable for the reason that there is no discussion or finding on the issue specifically pleaded by the respondent that action of the appellant No.2 in redeeming the units of the mutual funds was unilateral and arbitrary, though this issue was vital to the adjudication of the lis involved. 9. With these findings, the appellate arbitral Tribunal has proceeded to issue directions to the appellants herein to refund the amount to the respondent which they have illegally appropriate as redemption proceeds of the respondent, along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 16.03.2021 till the date of refund. 10. 9. With these findings, the appellate arbitral Tribunal has proceeded to issue directions to the appellants herein to refund the amount to the respondent which they have illegally appropriate as redemption proceeds of the respondent, along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 16.03.2021 till the date of refund. 10. We may note that instead of challenging the award dated 09.09.2021 under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996, an application under Section 33 of the Act’ 1996 was filed by the appellants seeking for correction in the appellate arbitral award dated 09.09.2021. While allowing the said application, the appellate arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2021 had modified the award dated 09.09.2021 to hold that no amount was payable by the appellants to the respondent as it had already given credit of proceeds of redemption of units of mutual fund. It was, thus, held that the respondent was not entitled to receive the interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded from 16.03.2021, as no amount was payable by the appellants to the respondent as the respondent was given credit of the proceeds of redemption of units of mutual fund by the appellants. The respondent herein before the appellate arbitral Tribunal had preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 with a prayer to set aside the impugned award dated 09.09.2021 and the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the arbitral appellate Tribunal of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (in short as “the NSE”). 11. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted, at this juncture, that the appellants herein did not challenge the Tribunal award dated 09.09.2021 before the competent Court invoking Section 34 of the Act’ 1996. The award dated 09.09.2021, thus, has attained the finality in so far as the claim of the appellants herein. However, the said award was modified by the appellate arbitral Tribunal by invoking the powers under Section 33 of the Act’ 1996 and the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021 was passed by the appellate arbitral Tribunal. 12. We may further note that the application under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 filed by the respondent herein has been partly allowed vide judgement and order dated 12.10.2023, only to the extent of setting aside the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the appellate arbitral Tribunal. 12. We may further note that the application under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 filed by the respondent herein has been partly allowed vide judgement and order dated 12.10.2023, only to the extent of setting aside the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the appellate arbitral Tribunal. The respondent herein, who was the applicant in the application under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 has not challenged the judgement and award dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Court under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 in refusing to set aside the impugned appellate arbitral award dated 09.09.2021 before it. 13. The result is that the only dispute remained before us is about the validity of the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021 passed by the arbitral appellate Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act’ 1996 and challenge to the correctness of the judgement and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Commercial Court. 14. The appellate arbitral award dated 09.09.2021, thus, has attained finality between the parties. The only question is as to whether the appellate arbitral Tribunal was empowered to modify the award dated 09.09.2021 in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 33 of the Act’ 1996. 15. Before proceedings further, we may note the provisions of Section 33 of the Act’ 1996 herein for ready reference:- “33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.- (1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties- (a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award; (b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. (2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award. (3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award. (3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award. (4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other party, may request, within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award. (5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (4) to be justified, it shall make the additional arbitral award within sixty days from the receipt of such request. (6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5). (7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional arbitral award made under this section.” 16. A perusal of the provisions contained in Section 33(1)(a) indicates that on the request made by a party to the award, with a notice to the other party, an arbitral Tribunal may correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of similar nature occurring in the award. The time period of making such an application is 30 days from the receipt of the award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties. Sub-section (1)(b) further provides that on an agreement between the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral Tribunal to give an interpretation of specific point or part of the award. Sub-section (2) further provides that if the arbitral Tribunal considers the request made under sub-section(1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation and, interpretation so made, shall form part of the arbitral award. Sub-section (3) further confers jurisdiction upon the arbitral Tribunal to correct any error of the type referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) on its own initiative. Sub-section (3) further confers jurisdiction upon the arbitral Tribunal to correct any error of the type referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) on its own initiative. Sub-section (4) of Section 33 further provides that a party with notice to the other party, may request, within 30 days from the receipt of the arbitral award, to the arbitral Tribunal, to make an additional arbitral award as to the claims presented in the arbitral proceedings omitted from the arbitral award, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. 17. A careful reading of Section 33, thus, indicate that only clerical, typographical or arithmetical error or errors of similar nature can be corrected on an application moved by the party to the arbitral award with notice to the other party. In so far as the interpretation on a specific point or part of the award, as per Section 33(1)(a) has to be an agreement between the parties. On the additional arbitral award as per Section 33(4), the arbitral Tribunal is confined to the claim presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award. None of the three eventualities prescribed in Section 33(1)(a)(b) and Section 33(4) could be used or treated to have conferred jurisdiction upon the arbitral Tribunal to modify the arbitral award itself. 18. Upon reading of the operative portion of the arbitral award dated 09.09.2021, it has rightly noted that from the reading of the entire award, the appellate Tribunal had specifically held that the actions of the appellants in liquidating and redeeming the mutual fund units of the respondent for appropriating against the margin shortfalls, illegal and, accordingly, had directed to refund the money. However, in the exercise of its power under Section 33 of the Act, while passing the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021, the appellate Tribunal has completely took a U-turn to hold that since the amount of mutual fund was already credited in the account of the respondent, no amount was required to be paid by the appellants to the respondent. The relevant observations of the appellate Tribunal in its supplementary award as extracted in the order impugned dated 12.10.2023 by the Court under Section 34 are to be extracted hereinbefore:- “4. The Respondent has preferred application under Section 33 of the Act inter alia pointing out that it has not retained any amount pursuant redemption of mutual fund units. The relevant observations of the appellate Tribunal in its supplementary award as extracted in the order impugned dated 12.10.2023 by the Court under Section 34 are to be extracted hereinbefore:- “4. The Respondent has preferred application under Section 33 of the Act inter alia pointing out that it has not retained any amount pursuant redemption of mutual fund units. Our attention is brought to Page No.64 of Compilation produced by Appellant wherein Statement of Account of Appellant in the books of Respondent is produced for the period 01.04.2019 to 30.03.2020. In this Statement, on 16.03.2020, 18.03.2020 and 27.03.2020, three credit entries are described viz Rs.1,24,78,630.90, Rs.6,53,238.22 & Rs.13,17,741.84. The aggregate of these credit entries amount to Rs.1,44,49,610.96 So according to Respondent, it has not retained amount recovered redemption of mutual fund and due credit for the same is given to Appellant. 9. We are mindful of limited jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act and therefore, we limit ourselves to facts that were part of the record and we are not dwelling upon new facts and we are limiting ourselves to facts on record that were existing at the time of award. 10. In view of the above, since it is brought to our notice that there is no amount appropriate by Respondent from the redemption of units of mutual fund of Appellant, we modify our award dated 09.09.2021 and hold that no amount is to be paid by Respondent to the Appellant as it has already given credit of proceeds of redemption of units of mutual fund.” 19. The operative portion of the supplementary award, thus, reads as under:- “SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD 1. The application under Section 33 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Appellant and Respondent are disposed off. Since no amount is to be paid by Respondent to Appellant in view of above stated reasoning, the correction sought by Appellant is rendered moot as no question of payment of interest from 16.03.2020 arises. Therefore, correction sought by Appellant is infructuous. No amount is to be paid by Respondent to Appellant as Appellant is given credit of proceeds of redemption of Units of Mutual Fund by Respondent. 2. No order as to any other cost. 3. The award is signed and stamped in the three originals. The NSEIL to retain one stamped original and forward one stamped original each to the Constituent Mr. 2. No order as to any other cost. 3. The award is signed and stamped in the three originals. The NSEIL to retain one stamped original and forward one stamped original each to the Constituent Mr. Utkarsh Divakar Mehta and Trading Member Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited and Hardik Patel.” 20. It was, thus, held that once in the original award the appellate Tribunal specifically held the actions of the appellants in redeeming the units of mutual fund to use as collateral to recover the margins as illegal and that the appellants could not have liquidated the assets of the respondents without any authority from the respondent, the direction contained in the original award to pay interest could not have been reviewed by the appellate Tribunal to hold that since the amount received by the appellants in redeeming the units of mutual funds had already been credited in the account of the respondent, no amount is required to be paid by the appellants to the respondent. In the original award, the appellate Tribunal had specifically disapproved the action of the appellant crediting the mutual fund units against the margins and, hence, the directions contained in the original appellate arbitral award dated 09.09.2021 could not have been reviewed to hold that there is no question of payment of interest of the respondent. 21. The judgement relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants herein to assert that the rectification of error was permissible and the decision of the Apex Court Gyan Prakash Arya vs. Titan Industries Limited, (2023) 1 SCC 153 relied by the Commercial Court does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and are of no benefit to the appellants and on careful reading of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act’ 1996, as discussed above. 22. Noticing the above, we do not find any error in the judgement and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Court under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 that under Section 33 of the Act’ 1996, the arbitral Tribunal cannot modify its award and it can only correct arithmetical or clerical errors. The arbitral Tribunal cannot revisit its award on merit in the garb of clarification and the modification made by the appellate Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law. 23. The arbitral Tribunal cannot revisit its award on merit in the garb of clarification and the modification made by the appellate Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law. 23. For the aforesaid, the judgement and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Commercial Court does not warrant any interference affirming the reasoning given by the Commercial Court for setting aside the supplementary award dated 26.10.2021 in the above manner. 24. We dismiss the instant appeal under Section 37 of the Act’ 1996 being devoid of merits.