Repetition Of Old & Overruled Arguments Not Sufficient To Reopen Concluded Adjudications In Review Petition Assailing Arbitration Order: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has held that repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications as the review proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC challenging an arbitration order cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The scope of review is very limited. Brief Facts of the case: The petitioner has filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging the order passed in the Arbitration Case, wherein this court has dismissed the Section 11(6) application on the ground of limitation. The petitioner while assailing the order has sought review of the order on the ground that the notices were quashed in the proceedings initiated by the Review Petitioner and lastly, an opportunity was granted by the Writ Appellate Court vide order dated 06.02.2023 to approach before appropriate forum against the demand raised and as the petitioner had resort of Section 14 of Limitation Act, but aforesaid aspect appears to have been skipped consideration. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the impugned order deserves to be reviewed and recalled, and the arbitration case is required to be heard on its merits. However, the respondent relied on the decision in Rudrapal Singh Bhadoria (2024) vs. Arvind Kumar and Ors and Harshvardhan Singh Rajpoot vs. Vikram Singh Rajpoot and Ors (2025) and contended that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC is not an appeal whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. The respondent argued that the court has already held that repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications as the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. Observation of the Court: The court held that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC are very limited. Additionally, the court held that a review application would be maintainable only on the following grounds: discovery of any new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made: on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other sufficient reason and when any of the eventualities as discussed above exists, then an order can be recalled and reviewed. Further, the court relied on the cases in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others (2023) and Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) wherein the court provided grounds when the review petition will not be maintainable. Finally, the court dismissed the review petition as there was no sum and substance in it. Case Title: M/S BANMORE ELECTRICALS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN Versus MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Case Number: REVIEW PETITION No. 754 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Prashant Sharma Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Raghvendra Dixi Date of Judgment: 08.05.2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Repetition Of Old & Overruled Arguments Not Sufficient To Reopen Concluded Adjudications In Review Petition Assailing Arbitration Order: MP High Court

Soumya Chakrabarti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Soumya Chakrabarti

Repetition Of Old & Overruled Arguments Not Sufficient To Reopen Concluded Adjudications In Review Petition Assailing Arbitration Order: MP High Court

Soumya Chakrabarti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Soumya Chakrabarti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers