Case Note & Summary
The review petitioner, Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., sought recall of the judgment dated 8 November 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 376 of 2017, by which the court had set aside the majority arbitral award dated 6 January 2017. The respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., had originally challenged the award on grounds including that the arbitrator nominated by the petitioner was disqualified under Section 12(5) read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for failing to make the required disclosure under Section 12(1). The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the review petition was not maintainable because the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and does not provide for review, and Section 5 limits judicial intervention. The court upheld this objection, noting that the Act contains no provision for review and that allowing review would contravene the legislative intent of minimal judicial interference. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Review Petition - Maintainability - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 5, 12(1), 12(5), Fifth Schedule, Seventh Schedule - The Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and does not provide for any review remedy. Section 5 of the Act limits judicial intervention, and thus a review petition is not maintainable against a judgment under the Act. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent was upheld, and the review petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a review petition is maintainable against a judgment passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given that the Act is a self-contained code and Section 5 limits judicial intervention.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Law Points
- Arbitration Act is a self-contained code
- no power of review under Arbitration Act
- Section 5 limits judicial intervention
- Section 12(5) read with Fifth and Seventh Schedule
- disclosure requirements under Section 12(1)
- maintainability of review petition
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 102
Review Petition (Lodging) No. 51 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 376 of 2017
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Counsel along with Mr. Rahul Lakhiani, Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Ms. Isha Maniar i/by M/s. Desai & Diwanji for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel along with Mr. Abhijeet Joshi and Ms. Varsha Sawant for the Respondent.
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against a judgment setting aside an arbitral award.
Remedy Sought
The review petitioner sought recall of the judgment and order dated 8 November 2019.
Filing Reason
The review petitioner sought to challenge the judgment that set aside the majority arbitral award.
Previous Decisions
The court had allowed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 376 of 2017 and set aside the majority arbitral award dated 6 January 2017.
Issues
Whether a review petition is maintainable against a judgment under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the review petition is not maintainable because the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and does not provide for review, and Section 5 limits judicial intervention.
Ratio Decidendi
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code and does not provide for any review remedy. Section 5 of the Act limits judicial intervention, and therefore a review petition against a judgment under the Act is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Arbitration Act being a self contained code and there being no provision prescribing a remedy for seeking review under the Arbitration Act, in view of limited judicial intervention under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, review petition is not maintainable.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 376 of 2017 impugning the majority award dated 6 January 2017. The court allowed the petition and set aside the award on 8 November 2019. The review petitioner filed the present review petition seeking recall of that judgment. The respondent raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 5, 12(1), 12(5)
