Court dismisses review petition under Arbitration Act, citing lack of express review remedy, limits judicial intervention.

The court held that the review petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was not maintainable as the Act does not expressly provide for the remedy of review. Citing relevant case law, the court emphasized that judicial intervention is limited to what is expressly provided in the Act and that the absence of an express provision granting the power of review precludes assuming such power. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with any order passed in such a review deemed ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Review Petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Review Petition:
The petitioner sought to recall the order and judgment dated 18th July, 2008, rejecting the appeal filed u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the review petition, arguing that u/s 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, judicial intervention is limited to what is expressly provided in Part I of the Act. The respondents relied on the judgment in M/s. Thanikkudam Bhagwati Mills vs. Mrs. Reena Ravindra Khona, which held that there is no inherent power of review vested in any court unless expressly provided by statute.

The petitioner argued that the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Thanikkudam Bhagwati Mills vs. Mrs. Reena Ravindra Khona had kept the issue of maintainability of the review petition open, and thus the judgment of the Learned Single Judge was not binding. However, the court found no substance in this argument, stating that the Division Bench had not set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge, making it binding.

The petitioner also cited the judgment in Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co. vs. Union of India, which dealt with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The court found this judgment inapplicable as it did not address the maintainability of a review petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Further, the petitioner referred to the Supreme Court judgment in ITI Ltd. vs. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., which discussed the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in the context of revisions. However, the court noted that this judgment did not address the issue of review petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court also referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vilalnath Narichania, which stated that in the absence of an express provision granting the power of review, such a power cannot be assumed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a self-contained code that does not provide for the remedy of review. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and any order passed in such a review would be ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---