Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Roptonal Ltd (formerly Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd) and Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., filed a review petition in the Bombay High Court seeking to recall an order dated 12th June 2014 passed in Arbitration Application No.97 of 2013, which had appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the respondent, Anees Bazmee. The background involved an agreement dated 12th May 2008 between the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd and the respondent, whereby the respondent assigned all rights, title, and interest in a film to the company. Subsequently, the Indian Film Company merged with Roptonal Ltd. Disputes arose, and the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause and filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leading to the appointment of an arbitrator. The review petition alleged that the court had not considered certain clauses of the agreement, particularly regarding the seat of arbitration and the requirement of a notice before invoking arbitration. The petitioners argued that these omissions constituted errors apparent on the face of the record. The respondent opposed the review, contending that the issues had been fully argued and decided, and that review was not a substitute for an appeal. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or re-argument of the case. The court found that the alleged errors were not apparent but required detailed examination, which is beyond the scope of review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, and the order appointing the arbitrator was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioners sought review of an order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the court had not considered certain clauses of the agreement. The court held that review is not an appeal and that the alleged errors were not apparent on the face of the record but required re-appreciation of evidence. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court had earlier appointed an arbitrator under Section 11. The review petition contended that the arbitration clause was not invoked properly. The court found that the issue had been considered and that no error was apparent. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 12th June 2014 appointing an arbitrator suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. The order dated 12th June 2014 appointing the arbitrator is upheld.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-appreciation of evidence or re-argument of the case
- Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
