The Kerala High Court has dismissed a review petition challenging the dismissal of an arbitration request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that substantive review of such orders is not maintainable in the absence of an express statutory provision. Justice S. Manu held that the “courts considering applications under S.11 should bear in mind the policy of minimum and constricted judicial intervention, especially in the reference stage.” The Court held that even after the 2015 amendment, petitions under Section 11(6) cannot be treated in the same manner as ordinary litigation, as doing so would undermine the objective of expeditious resolution of disputes.
The case arose after the petitioner sought review of an order dated November 18, 2025, by which the High Court had dismissed an arbitration request. The petitioner argued that post-2015 amendments to Section 11, the power to appoint arbitrators vests with the “Court” and not the Chief Justice or a designate, and therefore the High Court, being a court of record, retains inherent powers to review its orders. Reliance was placed on decisions recognising the High Court’s plenary power to correct its records and earlier judgments where review petitions were entertained.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained and exhaustive code, and that judicial intervention at the pre-arbitral stage must remain minimal. Relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s decisions in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.,(2005) 8 SCC 618, In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Stamp Act, (2024) 6 SCC 1, and Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.,2025 SCC OnLine SC 2578, the Court clarified that substantive review of Section 11 orders is impermissible and would defeat the legislative intent of expeditious dispute resolution.
The Court observed that entertaining substantive review petitions would create multiple layers of judicial scrutiny at the referral stage, contrary to the principle of minimal judicial interference embedded in Section 5 of the Act. While a narrow procedural review to correct patent or clerical errors may be available, reopening findings or re-interpreting arbitration clauses is not permissible.
Holding that the review petition sought a re-examination of issues already decided, the Court concluded that it was not maintainable and dismissed the petition.
Appearances
Petitioner- Adv. Millu Dandapani
Respondents- Sr. Adv. George Cherian
