- CASE TITLE- ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA VS INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.
- DATE OF ORDER- 05TH JULY 2023
- BENCH- HON’BLE JUSTICE MR.VIKRAM NATH
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The present are review petitions seeking review of the judgement and order passed in Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr dated 10.08.2021.
- In the said case, civil appeals filed by the review petitioner were dismissed.
- A representation agreement between DMC and Integrated Sales Service Ltd was executed on 18.09.2000.
- The agreement specifically had a clause which stated that disputes arising between the two companies would be subjected to the laws of Missouri, USA and will be referred to sole arbitrator.
- Under the agreement, respondent no.1 was to find customers for DMC on commission. Respondent no.1 was to assist DMC in selling its goods and services.
- The agreement was amended twice. First was related to changes in the rates of commission while the second one dated 01.01.2008 declared the first amendment as null and void.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER
- The counsel submitted that the impugned judgement overlooked the point that section 44 dead with Section 46 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes only a foreign award enforceable.
- The counsel submitted that the review petitioner was not party to the representation agreement however the application of Delaware law by the arbitrator made the review petitioner a party to the proceedings.
- It was submitted that there was no foreign award against thr review petitioner which could be enforced in India.
- It was contended that the damages were calculated not in a qualified manner and was not supported by documentary evidence.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel submitted that the all relevant points have been considered by the Court and there is no case for review.
- The counsel while addressing the scope referred to the judgement in case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others, where it was held that though a judgement seeking review is erroneous, it cannot be a ground to review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The apex court held that there are no ground to allow the review petitions.
- Court held that review on merits of the award would be permissible under Section 48(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Court relied on the judgement in the case of Shivdeo Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1963) and held that power of review should not be confused with appellate powers.
- Court held that an error which is not self-evident can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.
- Court observed that a review petition cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal in disguise.
