Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd., was awarded a contract by the respondent, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., on 26 June 2001 for a road improvement project. Disputes arose and were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator dismissed the petitioner's claims on 8 November 2004. The District Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 4 October 2007. The High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 37 of the Act on 18 July 2008. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 6 February 2009 and the review petition before it on 10 September 2009. The petitioner then filed the present review petition in the High Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the review petition is not maintainable under Section 5 of the Act, which bars judicial intervention except as provided in Part I, and no provision for review exists in Part I. The court considered the objection and held that the review petition is not maintainable as review is not provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court dismissed the review petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Review Petition - Section 5, Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petitioner sought review of an order dismissing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the review petition is not maintainable because Section 5 of the Act bars judicial intervention except as provided in Part I, and no provision for review exists in Part I. The court upheld the objection, holding that review is not provided under the Act and thus the petition is not maintainable. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in light of Section 5 of the Act which bars judicial intervention except as provided in Part I.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review petition not maintainable under Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 5 bars judicial intervention except as provided in Part I
- No provision for review in Part I
- Order under Section 37 not reviewable
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (01) 95
Review Petition (ST) No. 16618 of 2010 in Arbitration Appeal No. 5 of 2008
Mr. Aniruddha Rajput, a/w. Mr. Sachin Pawar for the Petitioner; Mr. Prashant P. Chawan, a/w. Mr. Ravindra R. Chile, i/b. Reshmarani Nathani for Respondent No.1
M/s Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against dismissal of arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought recall of order and judgment dated 18 July 2008 dismissing its appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the order dismissing its appeal should be recalled.
Previous Decisions
Arbitrator dismissed claims on 8 November 2004; District Court dismissed Section 34 petition on 4 October 2007; High Court dismissed Section 37 appeal on 18 July 2008; Supreme Court dismissed SLP on 6 February 2009 and review on 10 September 2009.
Issues
Whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of Section 5 of the Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent argued that under Section 5 of the Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except as provided in Part I, and review is not provided in Part I, hence the review petition is not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, judicial intervention is barred except as provided in Part I of the Act. Since no provision for review exists in Part I, a review petition against an order under Section 37 is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By this review petition, the petitioner seeks that the order and judgment dated 18th July, 2008 passed by this court rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be recalled.
Mr.Chawan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to this review petition raises a preliminary objection about maintainability of this review petition on the ground that under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, matters which are governed by part I, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in that part.
Procedural History
Arbitrator dismissed claims on 8 November 2004. District Court dismissed Section 34 petition on 4 October 2007. High Court dismissed Section 37 appeal on 18 July 2008. Supreme Court dismissed SLP on 6 February 2009 and review on 10 September 2009. Petitioner filed present review petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 5, Section 34, Section 37
