A single judge dismissed a review petition against an order referring a dispute to arbitration and noted the sole arbitrator had made an award. The High Court Bench dismissed the appeal held that the order rejecting review was not appealable.
Appeal dismissed; notice of motion disposed of
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
app 91-2013
1/2
sat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2013 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2056 OF 2012 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 45 OF 2012 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 223 OF 2010 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 633 OF 2010
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 228 OF 2013
M/s.Morepen Laboratories Ltd. ..Appellant vs Rajesh Nanji Vora ..Respondent
Mr.Soni Sangle i/b. M/s.Kulkarni & Associates for the Appellant. Mr.N.M. Shah for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ. 10 JULY 2013
P.C. :
The appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 19 October 2012 which was passed on an application for reviewing an earlier order dated 7 March 2012 passed on a summons for judgment in a summary suit under Order 37 of the CPC.
2 On 7 March 2012 when the summons for judgment was taken out, the dispute in the summons for judgment was by consent referred to the arbitration of a former Judge of this Court. This order was passed admittedly when both the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties were present before the Court. A review petition was filed on the ground that Counsel for the
app 91-2013
2/2
sat
appellant, the original defendant, was not given instructions for consenting to a reference to arbitration. While dismissing the review petition, the learned Judge recorded that the earlier order was passed by consent of both the parties and in presence of their respective Advocates. The Learned Single Judge also observed that since the parties agreed to explore a settlement, as and by way of a last chance, the order which had been dictated in the open court was not signed for a week and was eventually signed and uploaded in the absence of any further communication from the parties that the disputes were settled.
3 No case for review was made out of the order dated 7 March 2012. The lack of authority if any of Counsel is not a ground for review. The learned Judge was, in the circumstances, justified in declining to review the order. Moreover, an order rejecting an application for review is not appealable under Order 47 Rule 7. The Court has also been informed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that in the meantime, the sole arbitrator has already made his award.
4 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
5 In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No.228/2013 in the appeal will not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order rejecting an application for review under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC is appealable.
Whether the lack of instructions given to counsel is a valid ground to review an order passed by consent in open court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
Rajesh Nanji Vora
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
