Kerala High Court Rules Against Substantive Review in Arbitration Cases

The court emphasizes limited procedural review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding legislative intent for minimal judicial interference.

In a significant ruling dated December 12, 2025, the Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition filed by Koshy Phillip against a previous order under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment, delivered by Justice S. Manu, underscored the court's lack of jurisdiction for substantive review due to the absence of explicit provisions in the Act, highlighting a crucial aspect of arbitration law in India.

The case involved Koshy Phillip, who sought a review of an earlier order dismissing his arbitration request. His counsel, Sri Millu Dandapani, argued that the High Court, as a court of record, possesses inherent powers to correct its records and should exercise substantive review over decisions made under Section 11(6). This argument was based on the judicial power nature of Section 11(6) and precedents from other High Courts that allowed procedural reviews.

However, the respondent's counsel, Advocate George Cherian, countered that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not provide for a review of orders passed under Section 11(6), emphasizing that the Act is a self-contained code with minimal judicial interference as its legislative intent. The court concurred, stating that substantive reviews are not permissible without an express provision in the Act, and only limited procedural reviews can correct errors apparent on the face of the record or procedural defects.

The judgment further referenced the 2015 amendment to the Act, which replaced "Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him" with "Supreme Court or High Court or any person or institution designated by such court." It clarified that this amendment aimed to expedite arbitration proceedings and did not confer powers for substantive review.

Justice Manu cited a range of precedents, including a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, which affirmed that the High Courts possess limited review powers in arbitration matters, restricted to correcting procedural errors and errors apparent on the face of the record.

The ruling reiterated the Arbitration and Conciliation Act's status as a self-contained code, restricting actions not explicitly provided under the Act. The court emphasized that treating arbitration petitions like other civil or constitutional litigations would contravene the legislative intent of minimal judicial interference and expedite dispute resolution.

The decision is a pivotal affirmation of the principles underpinning arbitration law in India, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial intervention and the self-contained nature of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Bottom Line:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Review petition against an order under Section 11(6) of the Act - High Court has no jurisdiction to undertake substantive review due to absence of an enabling provision in the Act - Limited procedural review is permissible only to correct errors apparent on the face of the record or to address procedural lapses.

Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6)

Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P Mathew, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821570