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.

ORDER

Petitioners in AR No.8 of 2025, rejected by order dated

12.12.2025, have filed this review petition.

2. The arbitration request was rejected as this Court found that there was no proper request under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act .

3. The petitioners have produced some documents along with the present review petition to contend that the disputes between the parties were clear to each of them, as the same were communicated in clear terms through the additional documents now produced. Further it is contended that under Section 21 of the Act, the only requirement is a notice/request seeking arbitration. Petitioners state that Annexure A3 produced with the memorandum of arbitration request fulfilled the said purpose and hence the order rejecting the arbitration request is flawed. According to the petitioners, the order dated 12.12.2025 in the arbitration request is liable to be reviewed as errors are apparent on the face of it.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them the review petition is not maintainable and even if it is assumed as maintainable no reason justifying review is presented in it.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 as also the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 10.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions. He relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to buttress the contentions. Respective counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 to 10 stoutly opposed the review petition and made submissions with reference to various judgments particularly to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2578] and of this Court in Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Others [2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13830].

7. In Koshy Phillip’s case (Supra) this Court considered the scope of review in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . This Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company’s case (Supra).

8. In Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“11.8. While High Courts, as courts of record, do possess a limited power of review, such power is extremely circumscribed in matters governed by the Arbitration Act. It may be exercised only to correct an error apparent on the face of the record or to address a material fact that was overlooked. It cannot be used to revisit findings of law or reappreciate issues already decided.

11.9. In Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others , (1980 supp SCC 420) this Court drew a clear distinction between procedural review and review on merits, holding that the latter is impermissible unless expressly provided. Applied to the Arbitration Act, this means that review is available only to cure a patent or procedural error - not to reopen interpretation of the arbitration agreement.

11.10. Referring to the aforesaid decision in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Jyothi Turbopower Services Private Limited , (2016 SCC OnLine Mad. 4029: 2016 (3) LW 683) in which, one of us (R. Mahadevan, J.) was a member, the Madras High Court held that while a Tribunal has no inherent power