Case Note & Summary
The review petition was filed by Kotak Securities Ltd. seeking review of the judgment dated 22.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1199/2012. The judgment had modified an arbitral award by directing payment of interest on the arbitral amount from 18.09.2007 (the date of the cause of action) instead of 11.04.2012 (as originally awarded), and also awarded costs of Rs.2 lakhs against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the interest should run only from the date of the arbitral award and that the costs were excessive. The court examined the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that review is not an appeal and is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the petitioner was essentially seeking a re-appreciation of the evidence and a different view on the interest and costs, which is not permissible in review. The court noted that the arbitral tribunal had discretion to award interest from the date of cause of action under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the High Court in first appeal had correctly exercised its discretion. Regarding costs, the court held that the award of Rs.2 lakhs was not arbitrary or perverse. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Review - Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise; it lies only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, not for re-agitating the same arguments or for a different view. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 3-5)
B) Arbitration - Interest - Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Award of Interest from Date of Cause of Action - The court held that the arbitral tribunal has discretion to award interest from the date of cause of action, and the High Court in first appeal under Section 37 of the Act can modify such interest. The review petitioner's contention that interest should run only from the date of the award was not an error apparent. (Paras 6-7)
C) Costs - Award of Costs - Section 35 CPC - The court found no error in awarding costs of Rs.2 lakhs against the petitioner, as the same was within the discretion of the court and not shown to be perverse or arbitrary. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 22.02.2013 in RFA No.1199/2012 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, particularly regarding the award of interest from 18.09.2007 and costs of Rs.2 lakhs.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Section 114 CPC
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Interest award under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (11) 9
Review Petition No. 52/2017 in RFA No.1199/2012
S. R. Krishna Kumar (for petitioner), Chethan Bhandary (party-in-person for respondent no.1)
Mr Chethan Bhandary and National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against a judgment in a regular first appeal arising from an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Review of the judgment dated 22.02.2013 in RFA No.1199/2012 to the extent of awarding interest from 18.09.2007 and costs of Rs.2 lakhs.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the interest should run only from the date of the arbitral award and that the costs were excessive, amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record.
Previous Decisions
The High Court in RFA No.1199/2012 modified the arbitral award by changing the date from which interest was payable from 11.04.2012 to 18.09.2007 and awarded costs of Rs.2 lakhs against the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the judgment in RFA No.1199/2012 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the award of interest from 18.09.2007?
Whether the award of costs of Rs.2 lakhs is an error apparent on the face of the record?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the interest should run only from the date of the arbitral award, not from an earlier date, and that the costs of Rs.2 lakhs were excessive and not justified.
The respondent no.1 (party-in-person) argued that the review petition was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the face of the record; the judgment was just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is not an appeal in disguise; it lies only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Mere disagreement with the judgment or a different possible view is not a ground for review. The award of interest from the date of cause of action under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is within the discretion of the arbitral tribunal and the appellate court, and such discretion cannot be interfered with in review unless it is perverse or arbitrary. Similarly, costs awarded under Section 35 CPC are discretionary and not reviewable unless shown to be arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
Before adverting to the factual matrix of this case as well as the grounds urged for review, it is just and necessary to bear in mind as to under what circumstances, the court can review its own order.
Review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
The petitioner has not made out any ground for review. The review petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Procedural History
The arbitral award was passed in favor of respondent no.1. The petitioner filed RFA No.1199/2012 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was disposed of on 22.02.2013 modifying the award regarding interest and costs. The petitioner then filed Review Petition No.52/2017 seeking review of that judgment. The review petition was heard and reserved for orders on 25.10.2018 and pronounced on 23.11.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 31(7)(b), Section 37
