Arbitration review jurisdiction is unavailable without express statutory power; courts cannot entertain review under the Act.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a review petition is not maintainable against an order passed under section 34 unless the Act expressly confers a power of review. Section 5 limits judicial intervention in matters governed by Part I, and review being a substantive jurisdiction must arise from clear statutory authorization. Reliance on authorities dealing with appellate or revisional powers was treated as inapposite because they did not recognise any general review power under the Act. Treating the Act as a self-contained code, the court held that, in the absence of statutory permission, the review application could not be entertained and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the absence of any express provision conferring a power of review.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 restricts judicial intervention in matters governed by Part I except where the Act so provides. The Act contains no provision conferring a power of review on the court against an order under section 34, and review is a substantive power that must be expressly created by statute. The reliance placed on decisions dealing with appellate or revisional jurisdiction was held to be inapposite, because those authorities did not recognise any general power of review under the Act. The court treated the Act as a self-contained code and held that, in the absence of statutory permission, a review application cannot be entertained.

Conclusion: The review petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, review is not maintainable unless the statute expressly confers that power; absent such provision, the court lacks jurisdiction to review its order.

---