No Substantive Review Maintainable Against Orders Appointing Arbitrators: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that only limited procedural correction and not a substantive review is permissible of orders appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A single-judge bench of Justice S Manu said the law on arbitration is a self-contained code and does not permit courts to reopen such orders on merits, as that would slow down arbitration instead of speeding it up.

The court cautioned that allowing substantive review of Section 11 orders would cut directly against this objective, observing that “being a self-contained and exhaustive code on arbitration law, the Act carries the imperative that what is permissible under the law ought to be performed only in the manner indicated, and not otherwise.”

The case arose from a dispute involving Koshy Philip, a 71-year-old resident of Pathanamthitta and Ernakulam, and Thomas P. Mathew, P.M. Mathew, and Petra Crushers, a business based in Kottayam. Philip had approached the High Court earlier seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties. That request was rejected by the court on November 18, 2025.

Unhappy with that refusal, Philip filed a review petition asking the High Court to reconsider its decision. When the matter came up again, the court did not go into the underlying commercial dispute at all. Instead, it first asked a basic question: can a review petition even be entertained against an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act?

Counsel appearing for Philip argued that after the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration Act, Section 11 powers are exercised by the High Court itself and not by a designated authority. Since the High Court is a court of record, he said, it has inherent powers to review its own orders.

Senior advocate George Cherian, for the respondents, countered that Section 11 confers only a limited statutory power and that the Act does not provide for any review. He argued that without an express provision, no substantive review can be entertained.

Agreeing with Thomas Mathew, Justice Manu said that while Section 11 powers are judicial in nature, that alone does not open the door to full-fledged review.

The court clarified that only a narrow procedural review is possible to correct obvious or patent errors. Anything more would amount to reopening the merits, which the Act does not allow.

The court warned that “entertaining petitions for substantive review against orders issued under Section 11 of the Act would defeat the purpose and object of arbitration law.”

With no statutory or inherent power available to carry out such a review, the court held the petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it.

Case Title: Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 6

Case Number: R.P. 1582 of 2025 in A.R. No. 179 of 2025

For Petitioner: Advocate Millu Dandapani;

For Respondents: Senior Advocate George Cherian