Delhi High Court
M/S Noddy Auto Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Honda Cars India Ltd. on 27 March, 2015
Author: Deepa Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. No. 945/2014
% Judgement pronounced on: 27.03.2015
M/S NODDY AUTO PVT. LTD ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abinash K. Mishra, Advocate.
versus
M/S HONDA CARS INDIA LTD. .......Respondent
Through: Mr Jagdev Singh and Mr.Ankit Verma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Review Petition 418/2014
1. This order shall dispose of the review petition for review of the order
dated 12th August, 2014.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/applicant that petition under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 was filed along with
stay application. It had been urged that the respondent had violated Clause
9.4 of the dealership agreement which had mandated a party to give a prior
notice for showing its intent of not renewing of existing agreement. The
respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the dealership
agreement. The petitioner had initiated the arbitral proceedings. It is
submitted that the said order has been passed by this court on the application
of the petitioner for grant of interim stay. It is submitted that para 3 and para
11 of the said order require a review as the same is not only contrary to the
record but the same were never even contended or argued on behalf of the
petitioner.
3. It is submitted in its written submissions to the application by the
petitioner that the word 'admittedly' in para 11 of the said order is contrary
to the said record as the same were never contended or argued.
4. It is further submitted that at no point of time it was argued on behalf
of the petitioner that the dealership agreement had expired by efflux of time
on 31st March, 2014. Hence, the contrary observations are noted in
paragraphs 3,4,7,11 and 12 and, more particularly, the use of word
'admittedly'.
5. It is further contended that the observations made in paragraphs 4 and
11 are based on the fact that the name of the petitioner do not find mention
in email dated 3rd March, 2014 and on that basis, the observations have been
made in para 12, while it is not so, in view of facts disclosed in review
application.
6. On these facts, it is prayed that the order dated 12.08.2014 be
reviewed.
7. The reply to the application has been filed by the respondent. The
petitioner had also submitted his written submissions.
8. During the course of arguments, it is also submitted that there is a
typographical error or mistake in para 1 where instead of 17 th July, 2014, the
date of 7th July, 2014 is mentioned.
9. Heard and perused the relevant record.
10. It is a settled principle of law that an order can be reviewed only on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that there is a
typing mistake in para 1 wherein the date 7 th July 2014 is mentioned. It is
apparent that in the said application, the petitioner has given the date of the
letter as 17th July, 2014 which is a letter written by the respondent pursuant
to the letter of the petitioner dated 7th July, 2014. Since this is a
typographical error/mistake, it stands corrected. In para 1, the date 7 th July,
2014 be read as '17th July, 2014'.
12. As regards, the mentioning of the fact "....The said dealership
agreement had expired on 31st March, 2014 by efflux of time". In para 3 of
the order is concerned, it is apparent that there is no mistake or error in
recording this fact, since this fact has been mentioned on the basis of the
dealership agreement which was valid till 31st March, 2014. There is thus
no error- factual or legal in para 3.
13. The learned counsel for petitioner has also contended that he had
never admitted that the dealership agreement had come to an end on 31st
March, 2014, and therefore, the expression 'admittedly' used in para 11
needs to be corrected.
14. In view of the case of the petitioner and contentions raised in the writ
petition, it is apparent that there is a mistake and error in para 11 of the order
whereby this court has used the word 'admittedly'.
The relevant sentence of para 11 is reproduced as under:-
"11. In the present case, admittedly, the dealership
agreement between the petitioner and the respondent had come to
an end on 31st March, 2014 and petitioner ceased to be a dealer of
the respondent."
This sentence of para 11 be now read as under:-
"11. In the present case, the dealership agreement between the
petitioner and the respondent had come to an end on 31 st March,
2014 and petitioner ceased to be a dealer of the respondent."
15. It is also argued that this court has observed in para 11, on referring
the email dated 3rd March, 2014 of the respondent, that the petitioner had no
legal existing right due to the fact that the name of the petitioner is not
shown in the email dated 3rd March, 2014 and accordingly, adverse
observations have been made in paragraphs 12 and 15.
16. The fact that the name of petitioner does not appear in document
dated 03.03.2014 is based on the document itself (copy of the email). It is
apparent that the name of the petitioner does not appear in that said email.
The court has proceeded to discuss the matters on the basis of the facts
pleaded and the arguments addressed before this court on that date.
17. Vide this application for review in the matter of document dated 3rd
March, 2014, the petitioner wants this court to review its order on the basis
of certain facts which were neither pleaded before this court nor were argued
on 12th August, 2014 but has been disclosed and put forward for the first
time through the captioned review application.
18. Thus, it is apparent that there is no error or mistake in the order on
this count.
19. The present review petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
O.M.P. No. 945/2014
Be listed before the Roster Bench for 8th April, 2015.
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 27, 2015
sapna
