9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (7) TMI 661 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the review petition to be maintainable? Whether when a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the Arbitration Petition was heard and was rejected the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition?
Issues:
Review of an arbitration order, appointment of arbitrators, maintainability of review petition, correction of errors in the order, re-agitation of previous arguments, judicial nature of Chief Justice's function, power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution. Analysis: The review petition was filed against an order passed in an arbitration petition, requesting a reconsideration of the order and the nomination of an arbitrator. The applicant argued that three arbitrators should have been appointed as per the UNCITRAL Model, but only one was appointed. The respondent contested the review petition, claiming it was not maintainable and was a dilatory tactic. The court found the review petition maintainable as the Chief Justice's order was judicial and subject to review under Article 137 of the Constitution. Regarding the correction of errors, the court accepted the applicant's submission that there were mistakes in the order regarding the arbitration location. However, the court rejected the larger prayer for reconsideration of the order and nomination of a specific arbitrator. The court emphasized that the power of review cannot be used to re-agitate old arguments or convert into a rehearing of the original matter. It stated that the review power must be exercised with caution and only in exceptional cases. The court concluded that the applicant's attempt to seek the same relief through a review petition, after it was rejected in the main matter, was impermissible. It likened the review petition to a "second innings" and deemed it unwarranted. Therefore, the court granted a limited prayer for clarification of the order but rejected the larger prayer for reconsideration and nomination of an arbitrator. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
