The High Court lacks jurisdiction to maintain a review petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as no express provision permits such review, emphasizing minimal judicial interference in arbitration.

ORDER :

1. A.R.No.179/2025 was dismissed by order dated 18.11.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner presented this review petition. When this review petition was listed for admission, both parties were called upon to address the Court concerning the maintainability of the review petition.

2. Heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

3. Sri.Millu Dandapani submitted that the High Court being a court of record has inherent power and duty to ensure that the records are correctly maintained and hence rectifying errors is within the inherent powers of the High Court. He further contended that the power under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a judicial power and therefore power of substantive review can be exercised with respect to orders passed under Section 11 (6) of the Act. The learned counsel relied on an order of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Review Petition No. 2 of 2013 in Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007 in Arbitration Application No. 44 of 2003]. The order was passed in a review petition filed against an order and judgment in an Arbitration Appeal rendered by a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [henceforward mentioned as ‘the Act‘] does not exclude the powers of the High Court to exercise its plenary powers to have procedural review in case of error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Judge allowed the review petition.

4. The learned counsel also relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Superintending Engineer v. M/s. P.C. Thomas and Company, (R.P. No. 126/2010 in A.R. No. 40/2006 & connected R.Ps.). He pointed out that the learned Single Judge entertained the review petitions, however rejected them on merits. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala and Another, 2000 (1) SCC 666 held that the High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, has inherent powers to correct the records. Further, it was held that the High Court has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. The power of the High Court in that regard was held as plenary. He submitted that in view of the amendment to Section 11 (6) by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the request is made to the Supreme Court or as the case may be to the High Court or any person or institution designated by such court. Therefore, it is no longer a power vested with a designated authority, but on the court. As the Supreme Court and the High Courts are courts of record, the inherent plenary powers can be extended to review orders passed under Section 11 (6) of the Act. The learned counsel hence contended that this Court has indubitable authority to entertain the instant review petition and to decide it on merits. The learned counsel addressed the court on merits also. Nevertheless, those submissions need not be detailed at this stage as the issue of maintainability requires to be decided first.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that the power available to this Court under Section 11 of the Act is a statutory power. Therefore, the power of review can be exercised only if the statute permits the same. There is no p