In Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn
Standard Company, (2006) 11 SCC 181, it was held as under:
33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to
make correction of errors in arbitral award to give interpretation of a
specific point or a part of the arbitral award and to make an additional award
as to claims, though presented in the arbitral proceedings, but omitted from
the arbitral award. Sub-section (4) empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to make
additional arbitral award in respect of claims already presented to the
Tribunal in the arbitral proceedings but omitted by the Arbitral Tribunal
- There is no
contrary agreement between the parties to the reference;
- A party to
the reference, with notice to the other party to the reference, requests the
Arbitral Tribunal to make the additional award;
request is made within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award;
Arbitral Tribunal considers the request so made, justified; and
arbitral award is made within sixty days from the receipt of such request by
the Arbitral Tribunal.”
The powers under Section 33 (4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act cannot be invoked for raising fresh claims or seeking an
appeal against the arbitral award. The powers of the Arbitral Tribunal in these
proceedings are restricted to making an award for such claims which formed a
matter for adjudication and on which the parties had led arguments. Pramod v. Union of India, 2019 (1) AWC 969.
Widow even after remarriage continues to be the legal representative of her husband as there is no provision under the Hindu Succession Act or any other law laying down that after remarriage she does not continue to be the legal representative. The right of succession accrues immediately on death of her husband and in the absence of any provision, she cannot be divested from the property vested on her due to remarriage.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1474, while considering the question as to whether a married daughter could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether she would be entitled to any compensation as she was dependent upon the deceased, considered the provisions of Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and relying upon the earlier observations of the Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarion v. Nalini Bai Naique, (1989) 2 SCR 810, observed that the definition contained in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure in inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression ‘legal representative’. As observed in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCR 404, a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband parent and child.
Delhi High Court in Ram Kishan v. Meena Kumari, 2011 ACJ 1211, has held that remarriage will not deprive a person from claiming compensation for the death of her/his spouse. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Baby, 2017 (2) AWC 1181.