SHAILESH RANKA Vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners seek review of order dtd. 19/12/2023 passed by this Court, dismissing application filed by the applicants for appointment of arbitrator under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act').

(2.) The petitioners submit that in the aforesaid order, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, for the reason that an objection taken by the respondent No.1 in the said application and upheld by this Court, while dismissing the application, is based on a factual error. It is submitted that while the Court proceeded on the basis that the petitioners and respondent No.2 were partners of a partnership firm R-Cube Energy Storage Systems LLP (R-Cube Energy), as a matter of fact, the said RCube Energy was earlier a limited liability partnership, but it stood registered as a private limited company in June 2019. It is submitted that this takes away the very basis of the order passed by this Court, dismissing the application filed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration Act.

(3.) The contesting respondent No.1 has resisted the present review petition, claiming that such a petition for review is not maintainable as the original order, of which review is sought, is an order passed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration Act. Since the Arbitration Act does not provide for a statutory remedy of review, the Court is denuded of the power to even entertain such a petition for review. Apart from this, it is claimed that the ground for review is not tenable because arguments were advanced on behalf of the applicants when the application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration Act was decided, on the basis that the aforesaid R-Cube Energy was indeed a partnership firm. Before adverting to the rival submissions in detail, a brief reference to the chronology of events leading upto filing of the present review petition would be necessary.