TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic Co. Ltd v. M/s Jain Studios Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 628. The prayer is to review the said order and restore the Arbitration Petition to the file for reconsideration. A further prayer is made to permit the applicant to nominate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satpal, Retd. Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana as one of the arbitrators. Notice was issued by me on May 4, 2006 by making it returnable on May 11, 2006. On returnable date, the parties were heard. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail in the present review petition since they had been stated in the main order. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there were two obvious errors in the order wherein it was observed as if the applicant (respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act, 1996 ('Act' for short) and as a nominee of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, by an order dated January 31, 2006, I allowed the application and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse, Retd. Judge as the sole arbitrator. The counsel, however, submitted that as per UNCITRAL Model, three arbitrators ought to have been appointed. To that extent, therefore, the order deserves to be reviewed and an appropriate order requires to be passed for appointment of three arbitrators. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the review petition. He raised a preliminary objection that review petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. He submitted that there is no inherent po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., this Court by majority of 6:1 held the function performed by the Chief Justice of a High Court or his nominee or by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee to be a 'judicial' one. Once the function performed by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee is held to be judicial, it cannot be contended that an application for review of an order passed by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee is not maintainable. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the applicant is right in relying upon Article 137 of the Constitution which reads thus: 137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the Arbitration Petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted. For the aforesaid reasons, the limited prayer to the extent of clarification of the order as to the stand taken by the applicant and the statement made on its behalf is granted. The larger prayer for reconsideration of the order passed in the Arbitration Petition and allowing the applicant to nominate Hon'ble Mr. Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
