M/S.Prime Habitat Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 3118 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

                 RP.No.837 OF 2020 IN Arb.A. 24/2019

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Arb.A 24/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER:

               M/S.PRIME HABITAT PVT. LTD
               V.K. COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR - 670001,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.RAVI GUPTA,
               AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.M.L.GUPTA,
               M/S. PRIME HABITAT PVT LTD, V.K.COMPLEX,
               FORT ROAD, KANNUR - 670001.

               BY ADV. SRI.A.S.THOMAS SMITH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        UNION OF INDIA
               REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
               SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN,
               CHENNAI - 600003.

      2        THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
               SOUTHERN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, KANNUR, KANNUR P O,
               PIN CODE - 670001.




               SRI. A.DINESH RAO - SC

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION              ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.837 OF 2020 IN Arb.A.24/2019

                                        2

                                   ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking that

the judgment of this Court, dated 16/07/2020,

be reviewed on the ground that there are

certain apparent mistakes in it; particularly,

that extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court of Madras in O.P.No.166 of 2009,

has been made incorrectly and that what is

extracted appears to be from some other

judgment.

2. The petitioner also has a case that

the directions in the judgment, sought to be

reviewed, are in error, since the impugned

Award of the Arbitral Tribunal was not in

conformity with the directions of the Madras

High Court, aforementioned.

3. I have heard Shri.Thomas Smith,

learned counsel for the petitioner and

Shri.Dinesh Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

the respondents.

RP.No.837 OF 2020 IN Arb.A.24/2019

4. As regards the contentions of

Shri.Thomas Smith with respect to the error

committed by this Court in Paragraph 9 of the

judgment while extracting the observations and

holdings of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras

in O.P.No.166 of 2009 is concerned, I find

certain force in it, since the extracted

portion appears to have been inadvertently

reproduced from another judgment. This is a

mistake committed by the clerical staff of

this Court and I am, therefore, of the firm

view that it requires this Court correct the

same to that extent.

5. However, on the question of merits of

this petition, Shri.Dinesh Rao - learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits

that this Court has no power to review an

Arbitration Appeal and therefore, that this

petition is not maintainable. This contention

is countered by Shri.Thomas Smith by citing

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RP.No.837 OF 2020 IN Arb.A.24/2019

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and

Another v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. and others

[2018 KHC 6977, asserting that, being a Court

of record, this Court has the inherent power

to review its own judgments and to correct

errors apparent on its face.

6. Even if I am to find favour with

Shri.Thomas Smith, I cannot see how the

petitioner can seek a review of the judgment

because, going by the grounds impelled in this

petition, it is evident that what he really

seeks is a rehearing of the contentions

impelled by the parties on its merits at the

time when this matter was heard on 16/07/2020;

and is ineluctably asserting that the opinion

and holdings of this Court recorded in the

judgment are in error.

Therefore, what is attempted to be

achieved through this petition is to have the

Arbitration Appeal reheard and a different RP.No.837 OF 2020 IN Arb.A.24/2019

opinion persuaded from this Court. But I am

afraid, being guided by the well established

canons of law - settled through a series of

judgments of this Court and that of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court - such an endeavour

cannot be permitted.

7. There is yet another compelling

reason I must record why this Court is not

persuaded to consider this review petition and

this is that the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner at this time is not the counsel

who had appeared when the Arbitration Appeal

had been heard. It is also equally well

settled that a review petition filed by a

different counsel will require to be dealt

with greater amount of care, especially

because what is asserted in the grounds of

this petition are as if none of them were

urged when the Arbitration Appeal was heard

and disposed of, which is contrary to truth. RP.No.837 OF 2020 IN Arb.A.24/2019

In the afore circumstances, since I cannot

find any reason to review the judgment on its

merits, I allow this review petition only to

the extent of correcting the judgment of this

Court, dated 16/07/2020, by substituting the

extract of the judgment mentioned in Paragraph

9 thereof, with relevant paragraphs of the

judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras

in O.P.No.166 of 2009.

The Registry, after making such changes,

will issue corrected copies of the judgment to

the parties as per usual procedure.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/30.1.2021