2023 (7) TMI 1411 - SC - Indian Laws

Power to review - error apparent on the face of record - Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - HELD THAT - The power to review can be exercised only upon existence of any of the three conditions expressed therein. 'A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record' is one of the conditions. It is only on this ground that review has been preferred. The above phrase has been consistently interpreted by authoritative pronouncement of this Court for decades. A three Judge Bench of this Court comprising of Hon ble Sri S.R. Das, C.J., M. Hidayatullah and Sri K.C. Das Gupta, J.J. in the case of SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE VERSUS MILLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE 1959 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT , discussed the scope of the phrase 'error apparent on the face of record'. The challenge before this Court in the said case was the judgment of the High Court on the ground whether it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court had issued a writ of certiorari and had quashed order of the Tribunal and restored that of the Mamlatdar. A power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. There are no good ground to allow the review petitions - review petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Review of Judgment dated 10.08.2021
2. Jurisdiction and enforceability of the foreign arbitral award
3. Scope and grounds for review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

Summary:

1. Review of Judgment dated 10.08.2021:
The Review Petitioner, Arun Dev Upadhyaya, sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 10.08.2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018, which dismissed his appeals against the enforcement of an arbitral award in favor of Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (Respondent No.1).

2. Jurisdiction and enforceability of the foreign arbitral award:
The representation agreement between DMC and Respondent No.1 included an arbitration clause under the laws of Missouri, USA, later amended to Delaware laws. The Review Petitioner, not a signatory to the agreement, was included in the arbitration proceedings, leading to an award holding him jointly and severally liable. The award was challenged on the grounds that it was not enforceable against non-signatories under Indian law. The Supreme Court held that the enforcement of foreign awards under Section 46 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applies to all persons, including non-parties to the arbitration agreement, and that tortious disputes connected to the agreement can also be referred to arbitration.

3. Scope and grounds for review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC:
The review petitions were filed under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue or reexamine the merits of the case. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that an error must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. The Supreme Court found that all arguments raised in the review petitions had been thoroughly considered in the original judgment, and no new grounds for review were presented. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.