IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 538 of 2008()
1. M/S.STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.EVEREST ENERGY PVT.LTD., REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.538 OF 2008 IN
A.R.No. 31 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner seeks review of my order on the reason that the
notice received by the petitioner from this court directing him to appear
on 15/02/2008 was received by about 11:00 a.m. only on that date and
therefore the petitioner came to be under the bonafide impression that
since the court time is already over, the petitioner will be getting fresh
ntoice from the court. I do not find any reason to dis-regard the above
explanation.
2. Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel for the respondent
draws my attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in SBP &
Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd ( 2005(8) SCC 618) and Jain Studios Ltd.
Through its President v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. ( 2006(5)
SCC 501). Sri.Philip Mathew would specifically submit on the
authority of the two decisions particularly the decision in Jain Studio’s
case that the Chief Justice of High Court or the designated Judge does
not have any power to review his orders, though such a power may be
R.P.No.538/08 2
available with the Supreme Court under Article 137. It was the power
under Article 137 and not the review power under Section 114 of the
CPC which was invoked by the Supreme Court in Jain Studio’s case.
Learned counsel also drew my attention to Section 11 (6) of the
Artbitration Act and submitted that orders of the Chief Justice or
designated Judge are final and once orders are passed, Chief Justice or
designated Judge become judicial in proceedings under the Artbitration
Act. I am unable to accept the submission of Sri.Philip Mathew. I am
of the view that the positioin being settled that the order passed is a
judicial one, the power to review the same on grounds on which review
of judicial orders are permitted has to be conceded. The judgment in
Jain Studio’s case in my opinion does not support the argument of
Sri.Philip Mathew that the Chief Justice or the designated Judge does
not have the power of review.
I recall the judgment accepting the explanation offered by the
petitioner for his non-appearance on 27-03-2008. Post the Arbitration
Request on 30/06/2008. Respondent in the arbitration request will file
counter affidavit, if any, by then.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
R.P.No.538/08 3