IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 816 of 2010 IN AR.NO.39 OF 2009 REVIEW PETITIONER: APPLICANT: M/S.KAIKKARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, KAITHAVARAM BUNGALOW, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 012, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.A.ABDUL SALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY (CENTRAL CIRCLE) VYTTILA, COCHIN - 682 019. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, KODUNGALLOOR. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, PARLIAMENT STREET, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, PARLIAMENT STREET, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, PARLIAMENT STREET, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 8. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MORT & H, PUBLIC OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMR.B.JAYASOORYA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON 02/02/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P. NO. 816 OF 2010 in Arbitration Request No.39 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R The applicant in A.R.No.39 of 2009 has filed this Review Petition seeking to review the order dated 19.7.2010. 2. The main contention raised by the review petitioner is that the judgment in M.K.Abraham and Company v. State of Kerala and another ((2009) 7 SCC 636) was not properly considered while passing the order sought to be reviewed. It is also contended by the review petitioner that the limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit a designated Judge to record findings of fact, observation on the merits or controversy, etc. while disposing of the Arbitration Request. Elaborate arguments were made by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, mainly touching upon the point as to how the decision of the Supreme Court in M.K.Abraham's case was R.P.NO.816 OF 2010 IN A.R.NO.39 OF 2009 :: 2 :: allegedly misread and misinterpreted in the order sought to be reviewed. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner also submitted that in clause 25(d) of the Special Conditions of Contract, it is provided that the arbitration proceedings shall be held in India and the language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all the documents and communications between the parties shall be in English. If so, the Malayalam portion of the contract dated 25.8.2005 mentioned in paragraph 14 of the judgment could not be treated as part of the proceedings. I am of the view that clause 25(d) of the Special Conditions of Contract relates to arbitration proceedings and it does not relate to the contract. Therefore, the contention of the review petitioner is not sustainable. 4. The argument put forward by the review petitioner that the decision of the Supreme Court in M.K.Abraham's case was not properly assimilated and applied in the present case does not appear to be correct. The said judgment was considered and applied to the facts of the present case. R.P.NO.816 OF 2010 IN A.R.NO.39 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 5. The contention that in the order sought to be reviewed the merits of the case touching upon the dispute were considered on facts, does not appear to be correct. Only the question whether the dispute is arbitrable was considered in the order. 6. Learned Government Pleader submitted that a review petition is not maintainable to review an order in an Arbitration Request. In reply, learned counsel for the review petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another ((2005) 8 SCC 618) and submitted that an order passed under Section 11 is a judicial order and, therefore, a review petition is maintainable. 7. From the contentions raised by the review petitioner, it is seen that the contentions are in the nature of grounds which could be taken in appeal. A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal and the grounds on which an order could be interfered with in appeal could not be taken as the grounds for review. On a careful consideration of the contentions raised by the review petitioner and on a careful consideration of the order passed in the Arbitration Request, I am of the view that no grounds are made out to review R.P.NO.816 OF 2010 IN A.R.NO.39 OF 2009 :: 4 :: the order dated 19.7.2010 in the Arbitration Request. There is no error apparent on the face of the record or other justifiable reason to review the order. For the aforesaid reasons, the Review Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/