DELHI JAL BOARD vs MS MOHINI ELECTRICALS LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2022 DELHI JAL BOARD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain Sr. Adv. and Mr. Tushar Sanu, SC for DJB with Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Ms. Rishika Agrawal and Ms. Priya Tyagi, Advs. versus MS MOHINI ELECTRICALS LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Handa and Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 09.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. CM APPL. 13851/2026 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 13850/2026 3. For the reasons stated therein, the delay of 2 days in filing the review petition is condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. REVIEW PET. 101/2026 Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN FAO(OS) (COMM) 210/2022 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:11.03.2026 19:29:37 5. We have heard Mr. Ankit Handa, learned Counsel for the review petitioner at a considerable length. 6. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original appellant/respondent in the review petition, initially advanced a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this review petition. He submits that an order under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, is not amenable to review under Order XLVII of the CPC. He has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.2. 7. Mr. Handa, appearing for the review petitioner has, per contra, drawn our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in DDA v. Swastic Construction Company3. In that case, against an order passed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the DDA preferred an SLP to the Supreme Court, which disp