1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.- The defendant apart from other objections has taken the following objections:-- "The learned Sole Arbitrator has, after making the Award, dated 24-5-2005, sought to amend the award by order dated 29-5-2005 through which he has reduced the amount awarded to the plaintiffs. Even though the fact that the amount of award has been reduced is in favour of the defendants, it is submitted that once an Award has been made by an Arbitrator, the Arbitrator becomes functus officio and has no further power to pass any orders with regard to the award.
2. Under the circumstances the amendment is invalid and thus the Award is admittedly an Shipyard K. Damen International v. Karachi Shipyard and Engineering erroneous award and therefore cannot be made rule of the Court. "
3. ' The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the amendments were made in the Award after the same was signed and pronounced and that too without notice to the defendant. He submits that once the award has been made the Arbitrator becomes functus officio and has no power to pass any order with regard to the award. He further submits that due to the amendments in the award, the same becomes erroneous and cannot be made rule of the Court. The learned counsel relied upon the case of Chatti Lai v. Ram Chariter Sahn and others (AIR 1941 Patna 215).
4. ' The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that no amendment has been made in the award and in fact arithmetical/calculation mistake appearing in the award due to accidential slip has been corrected without effecting the award itself. He submits that under section 13(d) of the Arbitration Act, the Arbitrator is empowered to correct, any clerical mistake or error arising, from, any accidental slip or omission. He submits that the learned Arbitrator has corrected the figure of US$ 650,000 by figure US$ 615,000 appearing on page of the contract and this amount is available on pages 3, 8, 14 and 16 of the award. The figure of US$ 475,000 was corrected to read as US$ 440,000 by; deducting US$ 175,000 from US$ 615,000. He submits that the notice of correction in the award along with the corrected copies have been supplied to the defendant and referred to page 143 of the file. The learned counsel apart from other reported cases relied upon the case of Muhammad Iqbal v. PIDC (2000 CLC 876), Chouthaman Jiverajjee Poddar v. Ram Chandra Jivrajee Poddar (AIR 1995 Nagpur126) (Vol.42, CN 31) and Juggilal Kanlapat and others v. General Fibre Dealers and Others (AIR 1962 SC 1123) (V 49 C 153).
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me.
6. ' There is consensus of the Superior Courts that after passing the award the Arbitrator becomes functus officio, but retains the powers to correct in the .Award any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission. I have examined the correction made in the award on the above touchstone. The learned Arbitrator has not altered, amended or modified the,award. The learned Arbitrator has only corrected the clerical mistake arising from accidental slip in the award.
7. The correction made by the learned Arbitrator after making the award has not in any way affecting the findings in the award. The error in calculation due to accidental slip can always be rectified without touching the award on merits. The correction can be made suo motu. As far as the contention of Mr. Shaiq Usmani with regard to non issuance of notices is concerned, it is suffice to say that unless the party, who claims that notice has not been issued, has shown the prejudice caused to him due to non issuance of notice award cannot be set aside. Furthermore, a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission may be corrected by the Court in exercise of powers under section 15 of the Arbitration Act. No useful purpose will be served by remitting the case to the Arbitrator for this purpose.
8. ' In view of above, I do not find any substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant and the same is overruled.
9. A ' The office is directed to fix the case for hearing of Objection to the award.