Case Note & Summary
The review petition was filed by Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (the original respondent no.1 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007) seeking review of the judgment dated 1st February 2013 passed by the Bombay High Court. The judgment had held that claim nos. 1 and 2 were barred by limitation. The dispute arose from a construction contract awarded by the State of Maharashtra to the petitioner for civil works of pressure and power house in ICT contract No.2. The work was completed on 31st March 2000. Disputes arose regarding hidden expenses, and the petitioner invoked arbitration. The first arbitration proceedings started on 27th April 1998. The Arbitral Tribunal made an award on 26th June 2003 in favour of the petitioner for Rs.17,81,25,152/-. The State Government challenged the award. The court in the original appeal held that claim nos. 1 and 2 were barred by limitation. In the review petition, the petitioner argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record because the court had not considered that the claims were not time-barred. The court examined the dates and found that the claims were indeed time-barred as the cause of action arose more than three years before the arbitration was invoked. The court reiterated that review jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 is limited to errors apparent on the record and not for re-appreciation of evidence. The court found no such error and dismissed the review petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The review petitioner sought review of a judgment that held certain claims barred by limitation. The court reiterated that review is not an appeal and is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error and dismissed the review petition. (Paras 1-46) B) Arbitration - Limitation - Claims Barred by Time - Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The original judgment had held that claim nos. 1 and 2 were barred by limitation. In review, the court examined the dates and found that the claims were indeed time-barred as the cause of action arose more than three years before the arbitration was invoked. The review petition was dismissed. (Paras 35-36, 46)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 1st February 2013 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that claim nos. 1 and 2 are barred by limitation, warranting review under Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Final Decision
Review Petition No. 2 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Limitation in arbitration
- Section 114 CPC
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 34 Arbitration Act
