The Bombay High Court recently granted relief to US-based company Advanced Technology Products in a mediation-related dispute with Oriental Export Corporation [Advanced Technology Products Inc. v. Oriental Export Corporation]
Oriental had filed a suit against Advanced Technology in April 2025. However, Presiding Judge of Court Room No.3 at the City Civil Court in Dindoshi rejected Oriental's plea to register the suit without exhausting the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
On a review plea moved by Oriental, the Presiding Officer of Court Room No.2 of City Civil Court set aside the earlier order in an ex-parte decision, thus allowing the suit to proceed without pre-institution mediation.
Advanced Technology then moved the High Court, arguing that there was no such situation that the judge whose order was sought to be reviewed was not available permanently.
A Division Bench of Justices RI Chagla and Advait M Sethna agreed, stating that the alternate judge could not have decided the review plea moved by Oriental merely because the judge who delivered the original judgment was on leave for two weeks.
It referred to Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to note that only the judge, who passed the order and continues to be attached to the Court and is not precluded for a period of two months, could have heard the review application.
“In our considered view, there is a clear violation of this provision in the present case by the alternate judge having heard the review application Oriental and passing the order under challenge, when the coordinate bench, who had passed the order under review, was available after the two weeks leave,” the Bench said.
The Court added that when the judge who passed the order is available within the prescribed period of two months, no other judge can hear the application for review.
It rejected Oriental's argument of urgency, stating that it could have very well moved the judge who had passed the order under review after he resumed charge after two weeks.
The Court also took objection to how the review plea was decided. It found merit in the submission that the alternate judge had sat in appeal over the order of the co-ordinate judge without providing reasons for review.
“It is well settled that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power, which enables a superior Court to correct errors," the Bench said.
Advocates Gaurav Mehta, Ravitej Chilumuri, Afreen Noor, Prince Todi and Sanya Gandhi, briefed by Khaitan & Co., appeared for Advanced Technology.
Advocates Ankita Singhania, Burzin Somandy, Ariana Somandy, Rina Ram, and Nikita H Joshi, briefed by Somandy and Associates, appeared for Oriental Export.
[Read Judgment]