The Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, dismissed a review petition in the matter of M/s Banmore Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. MP Industrial Development Corporation, ruling that old and already dismissed arguments cannot be grounds to reopen an arbitration matter.
The case involved a review of an earlier order where the petitioner’s application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was rejected due to being time-barred. In the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the petitioner attempted to reopen the matter by citing prior writ appellate proceedings and the quashing of demand notices. They argued that these aspects were overlooked and should now be reconsidered.
Read Also:- MP High Court Permits NEET UG Result Declaration Across India, Except 11 Indore Centres
Grounds Cited by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that:
- Notices were quashed in earlier proceedings.
- The writ appellate court, through its order dated 06.02.2023, had allowed the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum.
- The delay was justifiable under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
They claimed that these points had not been considered in the arbitration ruling and thus requested the court to recall and review the earlier order.
Respondent’s Stand on the Review Scope
The respondent opposed the review, citing that the scope of a review under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 CPC is very narrow and cannot be equated with a re-hearing of the case. They relied on precedents, including:
- Rudrapal Singh Bhadoria v. Arvind Kumar and Others (2024)
- Harshvardhan Singh Rajpoot v. Vikram Singh Rajpoot and Others (2025)
They emphasized that only a clear, evident error or newly discovered fact qualifies for review—not repetition of rejected claims.
Quoting the court:
"Review is not an appeal in disguise. It is not a rehearing of the matter but limited to rectifying apparent errors or omissions."
Justice Phadke stated that review is only permissible under certain grounds, such as:
- New and important evidence not available earlier despite due diligence
- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
- Other sufficient reasons, which are narrowly defined by law
The court referred to key judgments such as:
- Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. (2023)
- Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013)
The High Court found no valid legal reason to interfere with the original arbitration order. Since the petitioner merely reiterated previous points that had already been considered and overruled, the review petition lacked substance.
“There was no sum and substance in the review application to reopen a matter already adjudicated,” the court concluded.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: M/S BANMORE ELECTRICALS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN Versus MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Case Number: REVIEW PETITION No. 754 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Prashant Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Raghvendra Dixi
