Limited Scope of Review Jurisdiction – Must be an error apparent on the face of the record: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the limited scope of review jurisdiction and dismissed a series of review petitions seeking to challenge a previous judgment. The court emphasized that the power to review can only be exercised on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be utilized as an appellate power.

The bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath stated, "An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record." The court clarified that the review jurisdiction should be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The review petitions challenged the validity of an arbitral award and raised multiple grounds for review. However, the court held that the arguments presented in the review petitions did not meet the criteria for an error apparent on the face of the record. The court further emphasized that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and should not be used to re-argue points that were already addressed and decided.

Addressing the subject of foreign awards and tortious disputes in arbitration, the court noted, "Arbitration agreement can include tortious disputes if they are connected with the agreement." The court also discussed the interpretation of relevant sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pertaining to foreign awards and the binding effect of an award.

The judgment, rendered by the bench on July 5, 2023, reinforces the principle that the review power should be exercised within its prescribed limits and cannot be employed to challenge the merits of a decision or to revisit points already decided.

The dismissed review petitions highlight the importance of understanding the specific grounds for review and the need for parties to carefully assess the presence of an error apparent on the face of the record before seeking review. The ruling sets a precedent for maintaining the integrity of the review process and upholding the finality of judgments.

Date of Decision: July 5, 2023

ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA vs INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.