[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Randhir Singh Saluja vs Appolo Creations Pvt. Ltd. Through ... on 24 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5496 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 1653 of 2025
SHRI RANDHIR SINGH SALUJA
Versus
APPOLO CREATIONS PVT. LTD. THROUGH NIRMAL AGRWAL
Appearance:
Shri Aman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned senior advocate with Shri Vikram Malviya,
learned counsel for the respondent.
Reserved on : 27/01/2026
Pronounced on : 24/02/2026
___________________________________________________________
ORDER
1] This review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Order XLVII
Rule 1 of CPC for review of the order dated 22/03/2024 passed by this Court in
Arbitration Case No.03/2024, whereby this Court while allowing the application
filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996") appointed Hon'ble Shri
Justice Mohd. Rafiq Ex Chief Justice of the M.P. High Court as the sole
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
2] This petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the agreement
between the parties was not registered and also that the original agreement or
certified copy of the agreement was not filed. Hence, it is submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5496 2
petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 22/03/2024 be set aside and the
arbitration case No.3/2024 be restored in order to initiate appropriate perjury
proceedings against the respondent signatory.
3] Shri Manoj Mnshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent,
on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that review
petition itself is not maintainable as the intervention of the Court is expressly
barred by Section 5 of the Act of 1996, which provides for extent of judicial
intervention that no judicial authority shall intervene except as provided in this
part and the Act does not provide any statutory remedy of review against an
order passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. Learned counsel has also
relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of in
Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1.
and in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs. Bhartiya Rajya
Pul Nirman Nigam 2025 INSC 1365.
4] Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner had challenged the
jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Section 16(2) of the Act of 1996, which has
already been dismissed by the Arbitrator on 03/11/2024 and thereafter the
petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and thus, he is estopped
from challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator at this belated stage where
the arguments before the Arbitrator have already been concluded and at this
belated stage, the present review petition cannot be entertained which is also not
maintainable.
5] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record including the order passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements (supra), the relevant
para No.212 of which reads as under:-
212. In Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) (P) Ltd. v. Waterline Hotels (P)
Ltd., MANU/SC/0085/2022 : 2022:INSC:90 : (2022) 7 SCC 662 the issue before
a Bench of three Judges of this Court in a Section 11 application was: whether
the court can proceed to appoint an arbitrator when the underlying contract is
incorrectly stamped. In that case, it was observed that although "stamp duty has
been paid, whether it be insufficient or appropriate is a question that may be
answered at a later stage as this Court cannot review or go into this aspect Under
Section 11(6)."
6] So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (supra), the relevant paras of the same
read as under:-
"11.7 Although the power exercised by the High Court under
Section 11 is judicial in nature post - SBP & Co. case, its scope remains
narrow. Once an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitral process must
proceed unhindered. There is no statutory provision for review or
appeal from an order under Section 11, which reflects a conscious
legislative choice.
11.8 While High Courts, as courts of record, do possess a limited
power of review, such power is extremely circumscribed in matters
governed by the Arbitration Act. It may be exercised only to correct
an error apparent on the face of the record or to address a material
fact that was overlooked. It cannot be used to revisit findings of law
or reappreciate issues already decided.
11.9 In Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal and others, this Court drew a clear distinction between
procedural review and review on merits, holding that the latter is
impermissible unless expressly provided. Applied to the Arbitration Act,
this means that review is available only to cure a patent or procedural
error not to reopen interpretation of the arbitration agreement."
(emphasis supplied)
7] In view of the aforesaid, this Court is also of the considered opinion that
when this Court had appointed the Arbitrator u/s.11 of the Act of 1996, and the
said order was also not challenged by the review petitioner before the Supreme
Court, and in fact he also participated in the arbitral proceedings, in which he
had also raised an objection regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal which
has also been rejected, it appears that the petitioner has filed the present petition
only to further drag the matter, which attempt is highly deprecated.
8] Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered opinion that once an
Arbitrator is appointed, there is no question of reviewing the order of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5496 4
appointment of the Arbitrator as has been mandated by Section 5 of the Act of
1996. Apart from that, since the Arbitrator himself is competent to rule-on its
own jurisdiction and the procedure which is to be adopted has also been
provided under Section 16 of the Act of 1996, the jurisdiction of the arbitral
tribunal cannot be challenged by circumventing the aforesaid provisions.
9] In view of the same, the review petition being absolutely devoid of
merits, is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees).
The aforesaid cost shall be deposit by the petitioner in the account of President
and Secretary H.C. Employees Union H.C. (Account No.63006406008,
Branch Code No. 30528, IFSC No. SBIN0030528, CIF No. 73003108919)
within a period of 15 days time (two weeks) from today, and the
acknowledgement of the same shall be filed before the Registry of this Court.
10] Accordingly review petition stands dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
