1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

RP No. 134 of 2020

(M/S PRESTIGE FEEDMILLS LTD. THR. SHRI JITENDRA S. RATNAPARIKHI Vs K.N.

RESOURCES)

Shri Amit Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Arjun Agrawal,

Counsel for the review petitioner.

Shri Vivek Dalal, Counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed on 23/08/2022

Heard on I.A. No.7436/2021, which is an application filed by

the Respondent for dismissal of review petition on the ground that

no review is maintainable under the provisions of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996').

2.

This review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1

read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for

review of the judgement dated 16.12.2019 passed by this Court in

Arbitration Appeal No.21 of 2019.

3.

Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the respondent has

taken strong exception to the maintainability of this review petition

on the ground that no review lies against an order passed in an

appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. In support of his

contention learned counsel has relied upon the Madhya Pradesh

Arbitration Rules, 1997 and the attention of this Court has also been

drawn to Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules which provides for the

applicability of certain provisions of CPC, and under the aforesaid

Signed by: PANKAJ

PANDEY

Signing time: 23-08-2022

16:00:58

Signature Not Verified

2

Rule neither Section 114 nor Order 47 are included. Thus, it is

submitted that in the absence of any specific provision regarding the

maintainability of the review petition, the same is not maintainable.

4.

Regarding maintainability of review petition, counsel has also

relied upon a decision in the case of Madhav Structural

Engineering Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Maharashtra State Road

Development Corporation Ltd., Mumbai reported as [2013 (2)

Mh. L.J. 372]. Reliance is also placed on a decision rendered by

the Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani

Banik (Smt.) and others reported as (2006) 4 SCC 78.

5.

Shri Amit Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the

review petitioner, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it

is submitted that the review petition is very much maintainable and

so far as the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the

case of Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. (supra) is

concerned, the same has already been distinguished by a Division

Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Accord Advertising

Private Limited Vs. Airports Director, The Airports Authority

of India in CAN 7354 of 2019 in R.V.W.171 of 2019.

6.

Shri Agrawal has also relied upon a decision rendered by the

co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Review Petition No.585 of 2019

(Smt. Pushpalata Jain Vs. M/s. Raj Enterprises & Ors.) wherein

in an application for review of an order passed by this Court in an

application filed under Section 11(6) Act of 1996, was suo-motu

taken in review by this Court has held that review petition is

Signed by: PANKAJ

PANDEY

Signing time: 23-08-2022

16:00:58

Signature Not Verified

3

maintainable, relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme

Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

and another Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. and others reported as

(2019) 3 SCC 203. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to

the fact that the aforesaid decision in the case of Smt. Pushpalata

Jain (supra) was also challenged before the Supreme Court in

Special Leave Petition (C) No.4820 of 2021 ( Mohd. Anwar &

Ors. Vs. Pushpalata Jain & Ors.) and the Supreme Court has

affirmed the findings recorded by this Court. Thus, it is submitted

that the objections raised by the counsel for the respondent

regarding maintainability of the review petition be rejected and the

petition be heard finally on merits.

7.