A landmark judgment from the Supreme Court of India made it clear that parties to an arbitration can seek redress from the arbitrator mutually even after the statutory period of 30 days under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment further brings to the fore party autonomy, which is the bedrock of arbitration law in India.This is a case that was a direct outcome of a disagreement between the parties of a contractual relationship. The arbitrator passed an award following arbitration. Both parties felt aggrieved by certain parts of the award and applied to the arbitrator for explanations thereof. However, the same was done beyond the time limit of 30 days that Section 33(1) of the Act grants parties for applying to the arbitrator to correct any computational or clerical, clerical, typographical or similar error in the award. The issue that had to be addressed before the Supreme Court was whether a joint request for clarification made after the statutory period was permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Observing the statutory framework and the intent of the Act, the bench held that Section 33(1) prescribes a default timeline to enable procedural efficiency in arbitration proceedings. But the Court then went on to highlight the foundational basis of arbitration, being the mutual consent and agreement between the parties. If the parties both mutually agree upon seeking clarification from the arbitrator beyond the stipulated timeframe, it cannot be brushed off on purely technical grounds alone. According to the Court, refusing to entertain a mutually agreed request for clarification would defeat the spirit of arbitration and undermine the mutual understanding between the parties. It made clear that while the statutory timeline under Section 33(1) is paramount for procedural discipline, it cannot override the parties' autonomy and mutual consent. The judgment further gave guidance to the arbitrators by stressing that such joint requests should be addressed in a manner that does not undermine the finality and enforceability of the arbitral award. This decision reiterates the flexibility and party-centric nature of arbitration in India, bringing out clear-cut interpretations of procedural rules under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This decision is a step toward allowing more confidence in the arbitration process so that parties are given an opportunity to have fair resolution of ambiguity without being burdened by rigid procedural constraints.