KOSHY PHILLIP Vs. THOMAS P. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.R.No.179/2025 was dismissed by order dtd. 18/11/2025. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner presented this review petition. When this review petition was listed for admission, both parties were called upon to address the Court concerning the maintainability of the review petition.

(2.) Heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Sri.Millu Dandapani submitted that the High Court being a court of record has inherent power and duty to ensure that the records are correctly maintained and hence rectifying errors is within the inherent powers of the High Court. He further contended that the power under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a judicial power and therefore power of substantive review can be exercised with respect to orders passed under Sec. 11(6) of the Act. The learned counsel relied on an order of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Construction Co.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Review Petition No.2 of 2013 in Arbitration Appeal No.6 of 2007 in Arbitration Application No.44 of 2003]. The order was passed in a review petition filed against an order and judgment in an Arbitration Appeal rendered by a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [henceforward mentioned as 'the Act'] does not exclude the powers of the High Court to exercise its plenary powers to have procedural review in case of error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Judge allowed the review petition.