In Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 552, decided 26 May 2026, Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe), the appellant challenged the award on the basis that the arbitrator's mandate had expired — after having continued to participate in the proceedings without raising that objection.
The Supreme Court held that a party that acquiesces to the extension of the arbitrator's mandate is estopped from later challenging the award on that ground. The Court also clarified that the scope of Section 33 is confined to correcting clerical, typographical and computational errors, and does not extend to modifying substantive determinations in the award.
Why it matters: objections about the tribunal's mandate or jurisdiction must be raised when they arise, not held in reserve as insurance against an unfavourable result. Silence while continuing to participate is treated as acceptance.
The practical takeaway: if you believe a mandate has lapsed, object promptly and on the record. And if you want a substantive part of the award revisited, Section 33 is not the route — it is limited to genuine slips.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.