BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) against the order dated 09.07.2015 in OMP 693/2013 and the order dated 20.01.2016 in Review Petition No. 400/2015.

2. OMP No. 693/2013 was a petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act challenging an award dated 02.02.2013. In the order dated 09.07.2015, a learned single Judge had noted the two principle objections which had been taken by the respondent. The first being that the petition under Section 34 of the said Act would not lie in view of the fact that the impugned award was a foreign award. The second objection taken on behalf of the respondent was that even if the petition under Section 34 of the said Act was maintainable, the same would not lie in this court as this court did not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction. When faced with these objections, the learned counsel for the Union of India sought to withdraw the petition to move the same before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. The learned single Judge dismissed the said OMP as withdrawn in these circumstances.

3. Thereafter, a review petition (Review Petition No. 400/2015) was filed seeking review / recall of the order dated 09.07.2015. The main point urged in the review petition was that the learned counsel for the appellant had, on 09.07.2015, made a clear concession of law which led to the consequential withdrawal of the said petition. The plea taken was that a lawyer’s concession in law would not bind his client.

4. The review petition was taken up for hearing on 20.01.2016 when the same was dismissed. The learned single Judge, after extracting the earlier order dated 09.07.2015, had this to say:-

“1.1 A perusal of the aforementioned order would show that the concerned law officer who represented the petitioner on that date, withdrew the captioned petition to approach the appropriate forum; albeit in accordance with law. This aspect of the matter finds mention in paragraph 2.2 of the order extracted above.

1.2 As a matter of fact, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that the delay caused on account of time spent in this court ought to be condoned. As is evident from paragraph 3 of the order dated 09.07.2015, I had indicated that this aspect will have to be considered by the appropriate forum. It is, in these circumstances, that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. I must note though elaborate arguments were addressed, on the previous dates, on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG, as to how and why this court would have jurisdiction in the matter. However, having heard, the learned ASG, to my mind, what cannot be lost sight of, is that, the court at this juncture is only exercising review jurisdiction. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was withdrawn by the petitioner on its own volition, albeit under advice, I find, there is no error apparent on the record; a pre-requisite for triggering the review jurisdiction of this court.

3. Thus, in my opinion, the captioned review petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed.

4. Consequently, the pending application will suffer the same fate having been rendered infructuous. It is, also, accordingly, dismissed.”

5. Strictly speaking, there can be no quarrel with the decision of the learned single Judge insofar as the review order is concerned because in a case of withdrawal of a petition by the petitioner, there is no question of any error apparent on the record. The present appeal could be decided on this short point alone. However, Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the appellant, pleaded with us and quoted several authorities to indicate that a concession on a point of law would not be binding on the petitioner and that, according to him,