The High Court may exercise its limited inherent powers as a court of record to recall orders in arbitration proceedings only to correct manifest procedural errors or prevent miscarriage of justice, but not to review the merits of the appointment or re-litigate questions of law already decided.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

IA No. 3 of 2025 and IA No. 4 of 2025

1. The instant application for recall has been moved by the petitioner along with an application seeking condonation of delay, whereby the petitioner prayed that after condoning the delay the order dated 17.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 be recalled and its consequence would be that the mandate of nominee arbitrator appointed by this Court, on behalf of the respondents, in terms of Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996') would be terminated.

2. Notices were issued on the aforesaid application on 26.11.2025 and in furtherance thereof the respondents have filed their objections on 12.03.2026.

3. Shri Abhinav Kumar Mathur and Ms. Sushmita Mukharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 and the Court while exercising its power under Section 11(4) of the Act appointed a nominee arbitrator on behalf of the respondents.

4. It was submitted that the parties had entered in a contract which contained an arbitration clause. However, special conditions of contract prescribed appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for all disputes and claims which were valued upto Rs.25.00 Crores. It was further submitted that special conditions of contract could not be referred by the petitioner or by the respondent during the course of submissions and no specific reference was made to it in the pleadings of the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. Thus, the said fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court and the appointment of the nominee arbitrator in terms of Section 11(4) of the Act of 1996 was made in terms of the general conditions of the contract, which stood novated by the special conditions of contract.

5. The Court while hearing the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 and considering the submissions of the parties vide order dated 17.07.2025, found that the parties had entered into a contract which contained an arbitration clause. The Court also found that the disputes had occurred and the petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause appropriately and it had also nominated its arbitrator. Since, the respondents did not nominate its arbitrator, hence, the Court after receiving the consent from the proposed arbitrator appointed a nominated arbitrator on behalf of the respondents vide order dated 07.08.2025.

6. It was further submitted that the nomination of the respondents' party arbitrator was against special conditions of contract, which novated and superseded the arbitration clause contained in Clause 39 of the general conditions of contract.

7. It was also submitted that the aforesaid discrepancy could not be noticed and later the said fact came to the notice of the petitioner while undertaking a detailed examination of the contract documents. Immediately thereafter, acting with due diligence, this application for recall was moved and it was prayed that any delay in moving the said application be condoned, a