Review Petition Against Section 37 Order Maintainable Despite Narrow Scope for Technical and Substantiative Reargument

The respondent (Review Petitioner) filed a review petition against the judgment dated 12 January 2026 passed by the Division Bench under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The original judgment had set aside portions of an arbitral award relating to "Claim 12A" (expenditure during prolongation) and "financing charges"

The Review Petitioner challenged the judgment on three primary grounds: (i) that the Court erroneously set aside Claim 13 in its entirety; (ii) that the Court wrongly concluded that the Chartered Accountant had not verified underlying books for Claim 12A; and (iii) that the Court misinterpreted contract clauses regarding financing charges

The appellant (Delhi Jal Board) raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a review petition against a Section 37 order

Whether an order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is amenable to review under Order XLVII of the CPC

Whether the re-examination of evidence (Chartered Accountant’s certification) or the re-interpretation of contract clauses constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying review

The Court considered the maintainability of review based on the precedent in *Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.*

The Supreme Court’s direction in *DDA v. Swastic Construction Company*, which implicitly recognized the High Court's liberty to hear a plea for non-consideration of arguments via review

substantively, the court applied the principles of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which restricts review to "errors apparent on the face of record" and prohibits a re-appraisal of evidence or a "merit-based appeal" in the garb of review

Regarding maintainability, the Court noted that while Section 37 is silent on review, the Supreme Court in *Swastic Construction* had directed a party to approach the High Court with unconsidered pleas, which effectively validates the review remedy

On the merits, the Court rejected the first ground, clarifying that paragraph 154 of the original judgment must be read with paragraphs 155 and 156, which clearly stated that only financing charges were set aside while other findings were upheld

Regarding Claim 12A, the Court held that the petitioner’s request to re-verify if the Chartered Accountant examined specific vouchers constitutes an "intricate exercise" of re-examining evidence; such a merit-based re-appraisal is impermissible in a review petition

Finally, regarding financing charges, the Court determined that the petitioner's disagreement with the Court's interpretation of Clause 14.8 vs. Clause 20.6 is a matter of legal opinion and does not constitute a patent error

It held that while a review petition against a Section 37 order may be maintainable in light of Supreme Court observations in *Swastic Construction*

the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record

The Court affirmed that a review cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence or seek a different interpretation of contract clauses already considered in the main judgment