High Courts possess limited inherent review power under Section 11 to correct procedural lapses, not substantive findings.

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.

On 17.07.2025 and 07.08.2025, the Court appointed a nominee arbitrator for the Respondents, resulting in a three-member Arbitral Tribunal.

Subsequently, the Petitioner moved an application for recall/review of these orders, contending that "Special Conditions of Contract" (SCC), which prescribed a Sole Arbitrator for claims under Rs. 25 Crores, were inadvertently overlooked during the original proceedings.

The Petitioner argued that the SCC novated the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which originally provided for a three-member panel.

The Respondents challenged the maintainability of the review, noting that the Tribunal was already fully constituted and the petitioner had participated in the process.

The Court observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not expressly confer the power of review upon a "Court" as defined in Section 2(e).

As a "Court of Record" under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the High Court possesses inherent power to recall/review orders to prevent a miscarriage of justice or correct grave errors.

Review is limited to procedural lapses and cannot be used to revisit findings of law or interpretation of agreements once the Court becomes functus officio.

Under Section 4 (Waiver) and Section 10 (Number of Arbitrators) of the Act, the composition of the tribunal is a derogable provision.

The Court reasoned that while it has inherent power under Article 215, the threshold for its exercise is significantly higher than standard review grounds under the CPC.

The Petitioner itself had pleaded for a three-member tribunal in its original petition and nominated its own arbitrator under the GCC.

Both parties had consented to and participated in the formation of the three-member panel, thereby waiving their right to object to the composition under Section 4 of the Act.

Section 11 is intended to trigger arbitration, not create multiple stages of judicial reconsideration.

Since the Petitioner failed to raise the SCC defense during the initial hearing and the Tribunal was already functional, the "artificial apprehension" of future challenges did not constitute a "serious error" or "miscarriage of justice" required for a constitutional review.

Once the appointment is made, it becomes functus officio, and parties cannot "re-enter through the back door" to terminate a lawfully constituted mandate.

The applications for condonation of delay and recall/review were dismissed.