Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed special leave petitions filed by Patel Engineering Ltd. against the High Court of Meghalaya's order rejecting their review petitions. The dispute arose from arbitral awards dated 29.03.2016 concerning extra lead payment for transportation of materials under contracts for Packages I, II, and III of a hydroelectric project. The sole arbitrator held that payment should be determined under Clause 33(ii)(a) of the contract. The respondent, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO), challenged the awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, who upheld the awards. NEEPCO then appealed under Section 37 to the High Court, which allowed the appeals and set aside the awards on 26.02.2019. Patel Engineering filed SLPs before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed on 19.07.2019 after hearing. Subsequently, Patel Engineering filed review petitions before the High Court, arguing that the High Court's judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record because it applied pre-amendment law and relied on Saw Pipes and Western Geco, which were no longer good law after the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act. The High Court dismissed the review petitions on grounds of no review ground and delay. Patel Engineering then filed the present SLPs. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, held that it was not necessary to decide the maintainability issue because the earlier SLPs against the main judgment had been dismissed without liberty to file review. The Court noted that the principle of consistency and finality, as laid down in Bussa Overseas, bars entertaining SLPs against review rejection when the main judgment is not assailed. The Court dismissed the SLPs, affirming that no interference was warranted.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Maintainability of SLP against rejection of review - Where the main judgment has been challenged and dismissed by the Supreme Court in earlier SLPs, a subsequent SLP against the order rejecting review is not maintainable unless liberty was reserved - The Court held that consistency and finality require that such SLPs not be entertained (Paras 10-12). B) Arbitration Law - Amendment Act 2015 - Applicability - Error apparent on face of record - The High Court's judgment dated 26.02.2019 applied pre-amendment law and relied on Saw Pipes and Western Geco, which were overruled by the 2015 Amendment - However, since the earlier SLP against the main judgment was dismissed without liberty, the review petition and subsequent SLP were not maintainable (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain special leave petitions against the High Court's order rejecting review petitions when the main judgment had already been challenged and dismissed in earlier SLPs, and whether the High Court's judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of record due to non-consideration of the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the special leave petitions, holding that it was not necessary to go into the maintainability issue as the earlier SLPs against the main judgment had been dismissed without liberty to file review, and no interference was warranted.
Law Points
- Maintainability of SLP against review rejection
- Effect of dismissal of earlier SLP without liberty
- Applicability of Amendment Act 2015 to arbitration appeals
- Error apparent on face of record
