Case Note & Summary
The case involved a review petition filed by M/s Jain Studios Limited against an order dated January 31, 2006, in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2005, concerning the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute with Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. The review petition sought to restore the Arbitration Petition for reconsideration and to nominate a specific retired judge as an arbitrator. The court noted that the applicant had previously contested the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the Chief Justice of India had appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant argued that according to UNCITRAL rules, three arbitrators should have been appointed instead. The respondent contested the maintainability of the review petition, asserting that the Chief Justice's decision was final and not subject to review. The court found the review petition maintainable under Article 137 of the Constitution, clarifying that the order of the Chief Justice was indeed reviewable. However, the court accepted the respondent's argument that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue previously rejected points, which is impermissible in a review context. The court granted a limited clarification regarding the errors in the previous order but rejected the broader request for reconsideration and the appointment of the proposed arbitrator. The court concluded that there would be no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Review of Orders - Maintainability of Review Petition - Article 137 of the Constitution - The court held that an order passed by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is subject to review under Article 137, thus making the review petition maintainable. The court clarified that the review power is not to be confused with appellate power and should be exercised with caution (Paras 1-2). B) Arbitration Law - Composition of Arbitral Tribunal - Appointment of Arbitrators - UNCITRAL Model Rules - The court noted that the applicant's claim for three arbitrators under UNCITRAL rules was not valid as the same relief had been previously rejected. The court emphasized that a review petition cannot serve as a second opportunity to reargue the same points (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition is maintainable and if the order appointing a sole arbitrator should be reconsidered.
Final Decision
The court held the review petition maintainable but rejected the broader request for reconsideration and appointment of an arbitrator, allowing only a limited clarification of the previous order.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- judicial power
- arbitration agreement
- UNCITRAL rules
- Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
