Statutory review jurisdiction under arbitration law is unavailable without express conferral, and limitation rules still apply.

Review jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is purely statutory and cannot be invoked against an order under Section 34 unless the Act itself confers that power. Reliance on Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected because the Act regulates judicial intervention and does not import a general review power. On limitation, Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes thirty days for a review application, and the petition had been filed well after that period without adequate pleadings for exclusion of time or any condonation request. The review was therefore not maintainable and was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the absence of an express power of review under the Act; (ii) whether the review petition was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the absence of an express power of review under the Act.

Analysis: The power of review is not inherent and exists only when conferred by statute. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contains no provision conferring a power of review on the Court against an order under Section 34. The liberty granted by the appellate court to file a review petition did not amount to a finding that such review was maintainable in law. The reliance placed on Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected because the Act itself regulates judicial intervention and does not confer the review jurisdiction sought to be invoked.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on merits because no statutory power of review existed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (ii): whether the review petition was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Article 124 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes thirty days for a review application by a court other than the Supreme Court, commencing from the date of the decree or order. The order sought to be reviewed was much earlier than the filing of the present petition. The petition did not contain adequate averments showing exclusion of time spent in the appeal proceedings, nor was any application for condonation of delay filed. The materials on record therefore disclosed no basis for treating the petition as within time.

Conclusion: The review petition was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the review and dismissed the petition with costs, holding that the requested review was not maintainable and was also time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is purely statutory and cannot be exercised in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the Act expressly confers such power; a review petition must also comply with the prescribed period of limitation and supporting pleadings.

---