The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that review petitions are not a second appeal and cannot be invoked to re-argue merits or challenge discretionary orders on costs. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for procedural manipulation, particularly when litigants exploit emergency provisions to delay proceedings without genuine urgency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The review petition arises from an interim order dated 23 December 2025, passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in multiple connected writ petitions. The Bench had imposed costs on applicants who filed Section 8 petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to stay proceedings pending before the High Court. The Court found that these petitions were filed under the guise of urgency, despite no factual or legal basis for emergency relief.
Procedural History
- October 2025: Multiple parties filed Section 8 petitions seeking referral to arbitration, seeking to stall ongoing writ proceedings.
- December 2025: A Division Bench dismissed the petitions as frivolous and imposed costs, noting the absence of any genuine urgency.
- January 2026: The aggrieved parties filed a review petition challenging the cost order.
- 3 February 2026: The review petition was heard and dismissed summarily.
Relief Sought
The review petitioner sought vacation of the cost order, arguing that the Bench had erred in characterizing the Section 8 petitions as abusive and in imposing financial penalties without a full hearing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a review petition under Article 226 can be maintained merely to re-agitate a discretionary order on costs, where no error apparent on the face of the record exists.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the imposition of costs was arbitrary and violated natural justice, as no opportunity was given to explain the filing of Section 8 petitions. Reliance was placed on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath to argue that procedural irregularities must be corrected even in interim orders.
For the Respondent
The State and SEBI countered that the Section 8 petitions were filed solely to obstruct judicial proceedings, with no supporting affidavit or evidence of urgency. They cited Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. to emphasize that courts must curb abuse of process, and that costs are a deterrent against litigation misconduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and purpose of a review petition under the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 226. It held that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-evaluate facts or substitute judicial discretion. The Bench emphasized that the original order was based on clear observations: no representation was made before the vacation court, no affidavit supported the claim of urgency, and the petitions were filed in multiple unrelated matters simultaneously.
"Considering the circumstances under which Section 8 petitions were filed in matters pending before this Court by citing an urgency that was never there... we find no error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review."
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s failure to appear before the vacation court demonstrated a pattern of procedural negligence. The imposition of costs was not punitive but preventive, aimed at preserving the integrity of judicial process. The Court rejected the reliance on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, distinguishing it as a case involving fraud or collusion, not mere procedural delay.
The Verdict
The review petition was dismissed. The Court held that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge discretionary cost orders absent an error apparent on the face of the record, and that frivolous litigation tactics warrant financial deterrence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Petitions Are Not Appeals
- Practitioners must not file review petitions to re-argue factual findings or discretionary rulings on costs.
- Courts will summarily dismiss such petitions unless a patent legal error or jurisdictional flaw is demonstrated.
Frivolous Section 8 Petitions Invite Costs
- Filing Section 8 petitions to stall court proceedings without substantiating urgency will attract adverse cost orders.
- Courts may treat such conduct as abuse of process under Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Article 226.
Procedural Accountability Is Non-Negotiable
- Absence of representation before vacation courts will be viewed as deliberate delay.
- Advocates must ensure clients provide timely, substantiated applications - otherwise, they risk personal liability for costs.
