- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20149-DB RP No. 163 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REVIEW PETITION NO. 163 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 368 OF2024 BETWEEN: M/S MANISH MAN POWER AGENCY SHOP NO.10, G-10 SHARAY TOWER, BESIDES GOVERNMENT PRESS, M.S.K.MILL ROAD, KALABURGI – 585 103, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.YALLAPPA B.KANDKUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKIRTHI M C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20149-DB RP No. 163 of 2025 3. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE IN-CHARGE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY – 583 101. 4. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND THE IN-CHARGE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, KALABURGI DISTRICT, KALABURGI – 585 103. 5. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND THE IN-CHARGE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR – 584 101. 6. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE IN-CHARGE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, YADGIR DISTRICT, YADGIR – 582 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN COM.APPEAL NO.368 OF 2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20149-DB RP No. 163 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH) 1. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.01.2025 passed by this Court in Commercial Appeal No.368 of 2024. The petitioner had approached the Sole Arbitrator by filing the Arbitration Case against the respondents. An award has been passed by the Arbitrator on 11.08.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein had preferred an appeal before the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.88) in Com.A.P. No.119/2022. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) and set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing an appeal seeking inter alia to set aside the judgment dated 05.08.2024 and restore the arbitral award dated 11.08.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. This Court vide its order dated 06.01.2025, disposed of the matter, directing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20149-DB RP No. 163 of 2025 parties to invoke the arbitration clause as per the agreement between the parties and proceed thereafter in accordance with law. 2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this review petition seeking remand of the matter to the Arbitrator, to proceed from the stage of cross-examination of witnesses. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Appellate Court under Section 34 of the Act, and also the order passed by this Court. 4. It is a settled principle of law that only two options are available to the Court while considering the appeal under Section 37 of the Act. While dealing with such matter, the Court may either relegate the parties for fresh arbitration or to consider the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record within the scope and ambit of jurisdiction under the said provision. However, the Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the same Arbitrator unless - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20149-DB RP No. 163 of 2025 it is consented to by both the parties, that the matter be remanded to the same Arbitrator. 5. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this review petition. Hence, the petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. In view of the dismissal of the review petition, pending IA’s., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1