2006 (10) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that review application has been taken out pursuant to the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.9.2006 passed in Appeal no.690 of 2006. That order reads as under: - "After arguing the Appeal for some time, the counsel for the Appellants prays for withdrawal of the Appeal with liberty to the Appellants to file review Application before the learned Single Judge, seeking review of the order dated 18th April,2006. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed." The learned Counsel submits that this review application is maintainable because of the order of the Division Bench granting liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. In my ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Arbitration Act, this Court will have also power to review its own order because of the provisions of Section 114 of C.P.C. 3. One more objection is raised on behalf of the respondents to the tenability of this petition. The objection is that even assuming that the review application under Section 114 of C.P.C. is maintainable, the limitation is provided by Article 124 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act and it is of thirty days from the date of decree or order. The order of which review is sought is dated 18.4.2006. The present petition has been filed on 6.10.2006. Neither in the petition there are any grounds raised indicating as to how the application is filed within the time of limitation nor there are averments made claimi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... its order, the Court does not get power of review. It is admitted position before me that the Arbitration Act as such does not confer power on the Court to review the order made by it under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 5. So far as reliance place by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case "ITI Ltd." is concerned, perusal of that judgment shows that the question that was considered by the Supreme Court in that case was whether revision under the provisions of Section 115 of CPC is maintainable against an order passed in appeal. The appeal is provided by the Arbitration Act under Section 37 of that Act. Section 37 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:- "37. Appealable o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted. In my opinion, Section 5 of the Arbitration Act clearly excludes any power to the Court which is not specifically conferred on the Court by the Act. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:- "5. Extent of judicial intervention- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part." Section 5 of the Act clearly indicates that judicial authority or court shall exercise only such powers in relation to arbitration as is conferred on it by the Act. Therefore, unless power of review is specifically conferred on the Court by the Act, it will not have power to review its order. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s it absolutely clear that the judgment of the Supreme Court is turns on the construction of provision of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. 6. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in my opinion, as there is no provisions in the Act specifically conferring power of review on the Court under Section 34 of the Act, there is no power vested in the Court to review its order. 7. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, according to the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, the petition has been filed for review under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code. Article 124 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act lays down period of limitation which reads as under:- Description of application Period of limitatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that it was also open to the petitioner to apply for condonation of delay but the petitioner has chosen not to do so. It is thus clear from the material available on record that the petition is also barred by law of limitation even assuming that the review under section 114 of C.P.C. is maintainable. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner also relies on the provisions of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to contend that the review petition against the order passed under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable. Section 42 of the Act reads as under:-  "42. Jurisdiction - Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an ....