- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7138 RP No. 100143 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 100143 OF 2024 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION DIVISION, D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.G.ANANDASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PRADEEP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, #4, VRINDAVANA APARTMENT, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. JAGANATH G. SHETTY, AGE: 45 YEARS. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-1. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D C COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLZ PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2024 BY THE HONBLE COURT ALLOWING THE CMP NO.100017/2021 AND THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SOLE ARBITRATOR MAY PLEASE BE REVIEWED AND CALL FOR RECORDS IN CMP NO.100017/2021, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.29 14:44:52 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7138 RP No. 100143 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed by seeking review of the order passed in CMP No.100017/2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The review petition deserves to be dismissed on two distinct and independent grounds. The first pertains to the very maintainability of the present review petition. The impugned order, which is sought to be reviewed, has been passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is now well- settled that an order passed under Section 11 of the Act is not amenable to review by the same Court that has exercised jurisdiction under the said provision. Several High Courts have taken a consistent and categorical view - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7138 RP No. 100143 of 2024 in this regard. The Delhi High Court in Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Religare Finvest Ltd.,1 reiterated that at the stage of Section 11, the Court’s role is prima facie limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court is not required to undertake a detailed adjudication on aspects such as validity of the agreement, arbitrability of disputes, or defences like novation or satisfaction of claims, unless the issue is so glaring that it clearly indicates no valid arbitration agreement exists and therefore is not open to review under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Similarly, in Nagireddy Srinivas Rao v. Chinnari Suryanarayana and Others2, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken the same view, holding that once a petition under Section 11 is allowed or dismissed, the same cannot be subjected to a review by the same Court. In further affirmation of this settled legal position, the High Court of Calcutta, in the 1 2023 SCC Online Del 96 2 A.A.No.138 of 2017 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7138 RP No. 100143 of 2024 case of Sarada Construction v. Bhupendra Pramanik and Others3, has reiterated that a review petition against an order passed under Section 11 of the Act is not maintainable. 4. In view of the consistent judicial pronouncements from the aforementioned High Courts, which this Court finds to be well-reasoned and legally sound, this Court is of the considered view that the present review petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Without prejudice to the above, and assuming for a moment that the review petition were maintainable, even on merits, the petition fails to make out any valid ground for interference. A perusal of the grounds urged in the review petition reveals that the petitioner is essentially seeking a re-hearing of the very same issues that were already considered and adjudicated upon by this Court in the earlier proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. The 3 AIR 2023 Cal 115 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7138 RP No. 100143 of 2024 primary contention raised once again is that the dispute in question is not arbitrable, on the ground that the arbitration clause contained in Clause 24 of the tender notification was allegedly deleted, thereby rendering the arbitration agreement inoperative or non-existent. 6. This specific issue was raised, argued at length, and conclusively decided by this Court which is now sought to be reviewed. After a detailed consideration of the contentions of both parties, this Court finds no merit in the argument that the arbitration clause stood deleted or that the dispute was not arbitrable and the said issue is left open to be decided by the Arbitrator. The very same contention is now sought to be re-agitated under the guise of a review petition, which is impermissible in law. 7. It is a well-settled principle that a review cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, nor can it serve as a platform for re-arguing matters which have already been conclusively decided. What is essentially sought by the review petitioner is a reconsideration of the Court’s earlier - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7138 RP No. 100143 of 2024 decision, which falls outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Consequently, even on this count, the review petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 8. The review petition is devoid of merits is accordingly, dismissed. In view of dismissal of the review petition, the respondents are at liberty to request the arbitrator to expedite the hearing, in accordance with law. 9. In view of dismissal of the review petition, all pending I.A’s do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1