TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The AP was allowed and disposed of by appointing a former judge of this Court to act as the Sole Arbitrator. The respondent (review applicant) was represented and heard in the proceedings. 2. The grounds of review contained in the Memorandum are essentially on the point that the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and also that the review applicant has discovered new and important evidence which was not within his knowledge and could not be produced at the time of delivery of the judgment despite due diligence. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent in the present application (petitioner in AP 327 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luding the power to punish for contempt of itself. " 7. In M.M Thomas v. State of Kerala; (2000) 1 SCC 666, one of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether the power to review a decision rendered under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 could have been exercised in the absence of any of the conditions specified in section 8-C of the said Act. The other issue was whether the High Court has the power to review its own decision rendered in an appeal filed under the Act. The Supreme Court came to the view that the High Court is a Court of records as envisaged under Article 215 of the Constitution and therefore has inherent powers to correct the records. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that; "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1967 SC 1 and M.V Elisabeth v. Haewan Investment & Trading (P) Ltd.; AIR 1993 SC 1014 both of which held that the High Courts in India are superior Courts of records and have inherent plenary powers. Paragraph 17 of the Report in M.M. Thomas concludes that it is only proper that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the records. 10. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Limited; (2019) 3 SCC 203, the Supreme Court relied on M.M. Thomas and on Shivdev Singh; AIR 1963 SC 1909 wherein Article 226 of the Constitution had been invoked to declare that there is nothing in Article 226 to pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the High Court. 12. The objection to the maintainability of the present application is primarily based on the distinction between review and recall of an order and also the necessity of conforming to the conditions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure which stipulates the threshold benchmark for allowing a review application to go through the gates. The first objection with regard to the distinction of review and recall fails as the Supreme Court in M.M Thomas clearly included apparent errors noticed by the High Court in respect of the order passed by the High Court within its competence as a superior Court of record. The second objection requires a separate paragraph for discussion. 13. It is important to ....