IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 538 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE /ORDER IN AR.31/2007 Dated 27/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT : ----------------- M/S.STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LTD ATHANI PO., THRISSUR-680771, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) RESPONDENT/APPLICANT: ------------- M/S.EVEREST ENERGY PVT.LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ANIL KUMAR REGISTERED OFFICE AT 108, DEFENSE COLLEEN NEAR CORPORATION BANK SHANKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 092 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.538 OF 2008 IN A.R.No. 31 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner seeks review of my order on the reason that the notice received by the petitioner from this court directing him to appear on 15/02/2008 was received by about 11:00 a.m. only on that date and therefore the petitioner came to be under the bonafide impression that since the court time is already over, the petitioner will be getting fresh ntoice from the court. I do not find any reason to dis-regard the above explanation. 2. Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel for the respondent draws my attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd ( 2005(8) SCC 618) and Jain Studios Ltd. Through its President v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. ( 2006(5) SCC 501). Sri.Philip Mathew would specifically submit on the authority of the two decisions particularly the decision in Jain Studio's case that the Chief Justice of High Court or the designated Judge does not have any power to review his orders, though such a power may be R.P.No.538/08 2 available with the Supreme Court under Article 137. It was the power under Article 137 and not the review power under Section 114 of the CPC which was invoked by the Supreme Court in Jain Studio's case. Learned counsel also drew my attention to Section 11 (6) of the Artbitration Act and submitted that orders of the Chief Justice or designated Judge are final and once orders are passed, Chief Justice or designated Judge become judicial in proceedings under the Artbitration Act. I am unable to accept the submission of Sri.Philip Mathew. I am of the view that the positioin being settled that the order passed is a judicial one, the power to review the same on grounds on which review of judicial orders are permitted has to be conceded. The judgment in Jain Studio's case in my opinion does not support the argument of Sri.Philip Mathew that the Chief Justice or the designated Judge does not have the power of review. I recall the judgment accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner for his non-appearance on 27-03-2008. Post the Arbitration Request on 30/06/2008. Respondent in the arbitration request will file counter affidavit, if any, by then. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. R.P.No.538/08 3