pvr 1 nm362-rpwl148 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.362 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3573 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.148 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2007 M/s.Siddhivinayak Construction Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. M/s.Manik Developers. ...Respondent --- Mr.V.A.Sugadare i/b. M/s.L.D.Shah & Co., for Petitioner. Ms.Usha Purohit, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 31st March,2011 P.C.: 1. This notice of motion has been taken out for restoration of Notice of Motion no.3573 of 2010. That notice of motion was taken out for pvr 2 nm362-rpwl148 condonation of delay of 330 days in filing review petition. The review petition was filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in an Application made under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, appointing a sole Arbitrator, by consent of the parties. When I asked the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner as to where does he find power to review an order passed by a judicial authority under Section 11 of the Act, the learned Counsel pointed out to me a judgment of a Honourable Judge of the Supreme Court in an application filed under Section 11 of the Act in the case of Jain Studios Ltd. through its President Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co.Ltd., (2006)5 Supreme Court Cases 501 . Perusal of that judgment shows that the Supreme Court has held that the nominee of the Chief Justice of India exercising power under Section 11 of the Act gets power of review of the order passed under that provision because of Article 137 of the Constitution of India. No similar provision pvr 3 nm362-rpwl148 in relation to the High Court, is pointed out. In the absence of any such provision the nominee of the Chief Justice of High Court under Section 11 of the Act will have no power to review. Then, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another, (2005)13 Supreme Court Cases 777 , specially the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment. The Supreme Court has held that an order passed on merit by the judicial authority, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring power of review, cannot be reviewed, but if there is procedural illegality committed by the Court or the judicial authority in making the order then that order can be recalled even though there is no power of review. So far as the present case is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that there is procedural illegality in making the order. The contention of the petitioner is that pvr 4 nm362-rpwl148 the consent of the petitioner s Advocate has been wrongly recorded in making the order. This can hardly be said to be a procedural illegality or procedural mistake. In my opinion, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by restoring the matter. The notice of motion is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)