Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU
Koshy Phillip S/o P.M. Koshy – Appellant
Versus
Thomas P. Mathew S/o Mathan Mathayi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case details (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments for review jurisdiction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent's arguments against review jurisdiction (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. need for detailed examination of maintainability (Para 7) |
| 5. clarification on section 11(6) judicial power (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. judgments referenced for statutory powers of review (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. nature and purpose of arbitration act amendments (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. conclusion on review maintainability under arbitration act (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
2. Heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
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
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 i....
Review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to correcting procedural errors, not substantive review, reaffirming the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration.
The judicial nature of proceedings under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the requirement for providing an opportunity of hearing before the appointment of an Arbitrat....
The court held that its review under Section 11(6) is limited to confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement, without delving into substantive disputes, which is for the Arbitrator to decide....
The existence of an arbitration clause previously determined is binding on parties in subsequent proceedings, preventing re-examination of the clause's validity once an arbitrator is appointed.
Judicial review under Article 227 can intervene in arbitration matters to ensure justice, particularly regarding the acceptance of amendments and additional documents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
