Court allows review petition under Article 137 for correcting arbitration errors; rejects re-argument and specific arbitrator nomination.

The court found the review petition maintainable under Article 137 of the Constitution, allowing for correction of errors in the arbitration order. However, it rejected the request for reconsideration and nomination of a specific arbitrator, emphasizing that review cannot re-agitate old arguments. The court deemed the attempt to seek the same relief through a review petition impermissible, likening it to a "second innings." Limited clarification of the order was granted, with no costs awarded.

---

---

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.

---