$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1466/2024, I.A. 18492/2025 LORD MAHESH BENEFICIARY OF WOODLAND TRUST .....Petitioner Through: versus M/S MEDIPOL PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Samman Vardhan Gautam, Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Priyam Tiwari, Ms. Anshika Priyadarshini, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 01.08.2025 I.A. 18493/2025 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. REVIEW PET. 401/2025 1. This is an application seeking review of the order dated 11.07.2025. 2. It is stated by Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent, that the order dated 11.07.2025 needs to be reviewed on 3 grounds. 3. First, on the ground that all the documents produced by the petitioner are photocopies and no originals have been produced. 4. Second, Mr. Umesh Gupta never had any authority to enter into any Agreement for and on behalf of M/s Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. as it is a legal entity, and there needs to be an authorization in favour of Mr. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:29:10 Umesh Gupta. 5. Third, if there are allegations of fraud, the same needs to be adjudicated by the referral Court. 6. He relies on the judgment of Sulekh Agarwal vs. M/s Shiv Astha Construction Company Ltd. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 7904, and more particularly on para 4, which reads as under: “3…… 16. No doubt, in terms of the Act as amended with effect from 23rd October 2015 the Court is expected to proceed to appoint an Arbitrator if there is in fact valid arbitration agreement. On the other hand, there might be miscarriage of justice if the Court proceeds to leave all the complicated questions to be decided only by the Arbitrator. In the first instance, the Court must be satisfied that the agreements already entered to are genuine documents. The Court is unable to be prima facie satisfied, on the basis of the documents placed on record, that the agreements are in fact genuine. 4. In the light of the above discussion the Court declined relief under Section 9 of Act. The learned counsel urges that the Single Judge fell into error in not considering the fact that the FSL reports with respect to the authenticity of the documents was doubtful and in the circumstances a definitive opinion as to the fabrication or forgery containing the arbitration clause needed to be considered. Stressing the clause 32 of the relevant agreement categorically mandated resolution of dispute to the arbitration, learned counsel submitted that long. pendency has prejudiced the appellant and that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:29:10 in these circumstances this Court should pass an appropriate order to secure the property. It is quite evident that the learned Single Judge, conducted a prima facie but detailed inquiry as to the genuineness of the agreement in the light of case laws especially Bharat Rasiklal Ashra v. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra (2012) 2 SCC 144. This line of reason has been followed by subsequent judgment in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016) 10 SCC 386. In Bharat Rasiklal Ashra (supra) the Court held no doubt that mere allegations of fraud or fabrication should not ordinarily lead to the Court refusing to consider the existing arbitration clause. The Single Judge detailed in paras 14 to 16 extracted above his reasons why the allegations in the present case were serious. As to the appellant's contention that he would be seriously prejudiced if an order is not made because matter is pending for long, the Court is of the opinion that the law does not give him this remedy. The pendency can be duly explained in accordance with law. In these circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is upheld.” 7. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The law regarding the power to review is well settled. In Shyamjee Prepaid Services v. Top Steels & Renu Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 206 the Court held as under: “38. It has been settled time and again that the power of review is distinct from Court's power to hear appeals, i.e., the appellate jurisdiction. The power to review is not an inherent power. It must This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:29:10 be granted by legislation, either expressly or obliquely. The review is not a covert appeal either. The administration of justice cannot be impeded by legal formalities or procedural restrictions since justice is a virtue that cuts beyond all distinctions. Justice must flex before the law. Nothing would prevent the Court from correcting the error if it is determined that the error raised in the review petition was the consequence of an error and that the earlier decision would not have been rendered but for an incorrect assumption that in fact did not exist. 39. Review refers to a re-examination or reconsideration both literally and legally. It has as its fundamental concept the acknowledgment of human fallibility. However, in the legal system, the courts and even the law firmly support the finality of a judgement that has been reached in a lawful and correct manner. To address unintentional errors or injustice, exceptions have been carved out both statutorily and legally. The courts withheld this authority to prevent misuse of the legal system or a miscarriage of justice, even in the absence of any statutes or norms defining the situations under which it may review an order. 40. It has been settled by former Chief Justice Gwyer, authoring the judgment titled as Raja Prithwi Chand Lall Choudhary v. Sukrai, 1941 FC 1 that a court cannot act as an appellate court for its own judgements, nor can it grant petitions for review based only on the claim that one of the parties believes the judgement has wronged him. If matters that the Court has already decided on could be reopened and reheard, we believe that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:29:10 this would be unacceptable and extremely detrimental to the public interest….” 9. All these arguments were available with the review applicant at the time when the order dated 11.07.2025 was passed. The review petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, I am also proceeding to deal with the merits of the submissions. 10. As regards the first submission, whether the documents are photocopies or originals is not for the referral court to decide. The law with regard to the Court referring the parties to Arbitration is very well settled that the court is only required to see the Arbitration Agreement and the merits of the disputes will be adjudicated before the Arbitrator as and when raised as held in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754. 11. The second submission regarding Mr. Umesh Gupta not having authority to enter into transaction for and on behalf of M/s Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. is also an argument which is on the merits of the dispute and not a matter which goes to the question whether the Arbitration Agreement exists or not between the parties. 12. With respect to the third issue concerning the allegation of fraud, it is pertinent to note that the law on this aspect has undergone significant evolution. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar (2019) 8 SCC 710 as under: 4. The principles of law laid down in this appeal make a distinction between serious allegations of forgery/fabrication in support of the plea of fraud as opposed to “simple allegations”. Two working tests laid down in para 25 are: (1) does this plea This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:29:10 permeate the entire contract and above all, the agreement of arbitration, rendering it void, or (2) whether the allegations of fraud touch upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain. 5. Judged by these two tests, it is clear that this is a case which falls on the side of “simple allegations” as there is no allegation of fraud which would vitiate the partnership deed as a whole or, in particular, the arbitration clause concerned in the said deed. Secondly, all the allegations made which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, pertain to the affairs of the partnership and siphoning off of funds there from and not to any matter in the public domain. 6. This being the case, we are of the view that the disputes raised between the parties are arbitrable and, hence, a Section 11 application under the Arbitration Act would be maintainable. 13. I am of the view that the allegation of fraud is touching upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain and the same will be for the Arbitrator to decide. Additionally, there are no new grounds which were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the order dated 11.07.2025 was passed nor there is any error apparent on face of the record. 14. For the said reasons, no grounds for review are made out. 15. The application is dismissed. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 1, 2025/DM (Corrected and released on 05.08.2025) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:29:10