Review of Section 11(6) arbitration orders is maintainable, but it cannot reopen a refused arbitrator appointment.

An order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is judicial in nature and therefore amenable to review under Article 137 of the Constitution; the finality clause in Section 11(7) does not exclude that constitutional power. However, review cannot function as an appeal or rehearing, and a prayer already considered and rejected in the original proceedings cannot be revived indirectly through review. The erroneous recital in the order was corrected, but the attempt to reopen the refusal to appoint three arbitrators and secure the same substantive relief failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the review petition could be used to reopen the earlier refusal to appoint three arbitrators and to seek the same relief indirectly.

Issue (i): Whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The function exercised by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee under Section 11(6) is judicial in nature. An order so passed is an order within the meaning of Article 137 of the Constitution of India and is therefore capable of being reviewed. The contention based on finality under Section 11(7) was rejected in view of the constitutional power of review.

Conclusion: The review petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the review petition could be used to reopen the earlier refusal to appoint three arbitrators and to seek the same relief indirectly.

Analysis: Review cannot operate as an appeal or as a rehearing of the original matter. A prayer that had already been considered and rejected in the main proceedings could not be revived by filing a review petition. The attempt to obtain the same substantive relief amounted to an impermissible second innings.

Conclusion: The request to reconsider the earlier order and to appoint three arbitrators was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order was corrected to remove the erroneous recital, but the substantive challenge to the earlier arbitral appointment order did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is amenable to review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, but review cannot be used to reargue a matter or secure a relief already refused.

---