ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA versus INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 05-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA
v.
 INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.
(R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274/202)
In
(C. A. Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018)
JULY 05, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII, r.1 – Review –
Scope of – Civil Appeals filed by the Review Petitioner were dismissed
vide judgment dtd. 10.08.2021 inter alia holding that foreign award
could be enforced against non-signatories to the arbitration
agreement and that the only ground on which its enforcement could
be resisted or refused are contained in s.48, Arbitration and
Conciliation Act – It also held that the canvas of s.46 is wider than
that of s.35 and would apply to all the persons who are not even
parties to the Arbitration Agreement – It further held that tortious
dispute can also be referred to arbitration – Review sought – Held:
A power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and
has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Or. XLVII, r.1,
CPC – An error on the face of record must be such an error which,
mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require
any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably be two opinions – In the present case, 18 grounds
were raised in the review petitions – All the grounds taken in the
review were discussed in detail in the judgment dtd. 10.08.2021
and findings were returned not accepting the claim of the Review
Petitioner – Each and every argument having been considered in
the judgment, the arguments advanced if accepted would result in
expressing a different opinion on the points raised and decided,
which does not fall within the settled contours of Or. XLVII, r.1 CPC
relating to error apparent on the face of record – No ground to
allow the review petitions  – Constitution of India – Article 137,
145 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.35, 44-49.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 724 : 2023 INSC 610
724
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
1.1 A power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate
power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be
such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike
and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on
the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. [Para
15][738-F]
1.2 As many as 18 grounds have been raised in the review
petitions. A close perusal of the judgment dated 10.08.2021
reflects that all the grounds taken in the review have been
discussed in detail and findings returned not accepting the claim
of the Review Petitioner. What is sought to be argued is basically
that the view taken is erroneous and therefore, impugned
judgment deserves to be reviewed. Paragraph 29 of the judgment
deals with the analysis and interpretation of Section 44 of the
Act. This Court noticed that there would be six ingredients to
qualify an arbitral award to be a foreign award. [Paras 17 and
19][739-A-B, G]
1.3 In Paragraph Nos. 30 to 33, this Court discussed the
ingredients. Further, in paragraphs 34 to 37, the Court dealt with
the scope of Section 47 of the Act and the argument of the counsel
for the Review Petitioner that evidence should be adduced and it
should be a full trial to prove that the non-signatory would also
be bound by a foreign award, was rejected. In Paragraph Nos.38
to 57, this Court dealt with in detail the argument that review on
merits of the award would be permissible under Section 48(1) of
the Act and held against the Review Petitioner as none of the
grounds therein were available to the Review Petitioner. In
paragraph Nos. 66 to 70 of the report, this Court dealt with the
argument that damages awarded in tort would be outside the scope
of the arbitration agreement and rejected the said argument.
[Paras 20-22][740-D-F]
1.4 In paragraph 71 of the report of the judgment, this Court
compared the scope of Section 35 and 46 of the Act and further
observed that once the award was not challenged in the State
where it was made it could not be said that the arbitral award had
ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA v. INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE
LTD. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
infracted the substantive law of the agreement. Paragraphs 72
and 73 of the report dealt with the issue of violation of any public
policy and this Court found that there was no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.