2006 (10) TMI 478 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved: Review of order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, maintainability of review application, limitation period for filing review petition, power of the Court to review its own order, interpretation of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court.

Review Application Maintainability:
The petitioner sought review of the order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, based on the liberty granted by the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench did not specifically state that a review application is maintainable. The respondents argued against the maintainability, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that review power must be conferred by statute. The petitioner relied on a different Supreme Court judgment to argue for the High Court's power to review its order under Section 114 of the CPC.

Limitation Period and Grounds for Review:
Another objection raised was regarding the timeliness of the review petition. The respondents contended that the petition was filed beyond the limitation period of thirty days from the date of the order. The petitioner failed to provide grounds indicating timely filing or seeking condonation of delay. The Court highlighted the lack of averments supporting exclusion of time spent in other proceedings.

Court's Power to Review Order:
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Arbitration Act and noted that there is no specific provision granting the Court the power to review its order under Section 34 of the Act. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, it emphasized that the power of review must be expressly conferred by the statute. The Court concluded that without such provision, the Court lacks the authority to review its order.

Interpretation of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act:
The Court discussed Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, which outlines appealable orders without designating a specific forum. It referenced a Supreme Court judgment to explain that revision application against an order passed under Section 37 is maintainable, as per Section 115 of the CPC. However, the Court reiterated that the power to review must be explicitly granted by the Act.

Jurisdiction and Dismissal of Petition:
The petitioner argued for the maintainability of the review petition under Section 42 of the Act, but the Court clarified that this section pertains to jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and does not confer review power. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to bear the costs incurred by the respondents.