Section 11 arbitration orders permit only procedural review, not merits-based reconsideration of limitation or other objections.

An order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not open to substantive review on merits, because review is not inherent and must be expressly conferred by law. Only a procedural review is permissible where the proceeding is vitiated by a procedural illegality such as absence of notice or denial of hearing. A recall application based on alleged prior commencement of arbitration or limitation was rejected because those objections sought re-agitation of matters already decided and no procedural defect or error apparent on the face of the record was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be recalled in review only on the ground of a procedural illegality and not by way of substantive reconsideration on merits; (ii) Whether the applicant made out any ground to recall the order dated 22.9.2006, including on the plea that the arbitrator had already commenced proceedings or that limitation had been wrongly decided.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be recalled in review only on the ground of a procedural illegality and not by way of substantive reconsideration on merits.

Analysis: The power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by law. In the absence of any express provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a substantive review on merits is not available against an order passed by the Chief Justice under Section 11. Only a procedural review is possible where the proceeding itself is vitiated by a procedural illegality, such as absence of notice or denial of hearing for no fault of the affected party. The order under Section 11 is a judicial order with statutory finality, and a review cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or for a rehearing of concluded issues.

Conclusion: The Court held that only procedural review could be entertained, and substantive review on merits was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant made out any ground to recall the order dated 22.9.2006, including on the plea that the arbitrator had already commenced proceedings or that limitation had been wrongly decided.

Analysis: The plea that the arbitrator had already entered upon the reference was neither substantiated on the record nor raised before the Chief Justice when the review order was passed. On limitation, the challenge merely sought re-agitation of issues already decided. The claims were found to be stale and, on the materials relied upon, barred by time. The alleged letters relied upon to extend limitation were disputed, and the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall. Reappraisal of the material would amount to an impermissible appellate exercise.

Conclusion: The Court rejected both grounds and declined to recall the order dated 22.9.2006.

Final Conclusion: The review/recall application was not maintainable on merits and no procedural defect was shown; the refusal to appoint an arbitrator stood affirmed in effect, and the underlying arbitration request remained dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be recalled only for a procedural defect that vitiates the proceeding, and not for a substantive re-examination of limitation or other merits-based objections.

---