terminates with the termination of the arbitration proceedings. Admittedly, no petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has yet been filed against the award under Annexure-4. Whether the impugned order under Annexure-7 is an outcome of an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is the next question to be answered. No doubt, the Council had no difficulty to entertain an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act to rectify the award to the extent of any computation / arithmetical /clerical error in the award under Annexure-4. But, certainly, he did not have any jurisdiction to rescind the award as has been done in the instant case. Law is well-settled in the Gyan Prakash Arya (supra) that only in a case of arithmetical or clerical error, award can be modified and such errors can be corrected. Entertaining an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, the Council cannot travel beyond rectification of any computation, arithmetical or clerical error. No doubt, the date on which the award is passed, i.e., on 7th February, 2017 (Annexure-4), the Council becomes functus officio to entertain any application touching the merit of the award. By rescinding the award under Annexure-4, the Council assumed a jurisdiction not vested in it under Law.
