The absence of a specific provision for review in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 renders review petitions not maintainable, as the Act is considered a self-contained code.

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. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding review petition are as under:-

2. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondents on 26th June, 2001 for a project “Improvement to Existing Katraj-Kondhwa-Hadapsar-Saswad Road” of length 3.675 kilometers. Disputes arose between the parties. The matter was referred to the arbitration.

3. On 8th November, 2004 the learned arbitrator dismissed the claims made by the petitioner. On 4th October, 2007, the District Court dismissed the petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner. On 18th July, 2008 this court dismissed Arbitration Appeal No. 5 of 2008 filed by the petitioner under section 37 of the Act. The Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 6th February, 2009 filed by the petitioner. Review petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 10th September, 2009.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed the present review petition in this court.

5. 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. It is submitted that proceedings seeking review of the order is not provided under any of the provisions under part I of the Act and are thus not maintainable. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in case of M/s.Thanikkudam Bhagwati Mills vs. Mrs.Reena Ravindra Khona delivered on 9th October, 2006 in Review Petition No. 24 of 2006 in Arbitration Petition No. 351 of 2005 and submits that this court has held that review petition is not maintainable of the order passed by the court under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the said judgment read thus:-

“4. Now if in the light of these rival submissions record is perused, it becomes clear that according to the petitioner, the present petition has been filed under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order of which the review is sought is dated 18.4.2006 and has been passed by the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It it nobody's case that there is any provision in the Arbitration Act conferring power on the Court to review its order. Perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Patel Narshi Thakershi” as also in the case of “Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union” shows that there is no inherent power of review vested in any court. The power of review is creation of statute and therefore, unless the statute which creates power in the Court confers on the Court power to review its order, the Court does not get power of review. It is admitted position before me that the Arbitration Act as such does not confer power on the Court to review the order made by it under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

5. So far as reliance place by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case “ITI Ltd.” is concerned, perusal of that judgment shows that the question that was considered by the Supreme Court in that case was whether revision under the provisions of Section 115 of CPC is maintainable against an order passed in appeal. The appeal is provided by the Arbitration Act under Section 37 of that Act. Section 37 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:-

“37. Appealable orders – (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the court authorised by law to hear