09 March 2015
Supreme Court
Download

U.O.I Vs GURDAYAL SINGH

Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,AMITAVA ROY
Case number: C.A. No.-002865-002866 / 2015
Diary number: 31013 / 2013
Advocates: SHREEKANT N. TERDAL Vs


1

Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2865-2866 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.36943-36944 of 2013)

   U.O.I & ORS.         ....       APPELLANTS

        VERSUS     GURDAYAL SINGH .....      RESPONDENT

O R D E R

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We  have  noted  the  fact  that  the  learned  counsel  

appearing for the appellants had given consent before the  High Court for appointment of Mr. Justice O.N. Khandelwal,  former Judge of Allahabad High Court as a sole Arbitrator.  In view of the afore-stated consent given on behalf of the  appellants,  we  see  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the  appointment of the Arbitrator made by the High Court.  

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants,  we  also  note  that  there  was  no  issue  with  regard  to  interpretation of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of  the Contract before the High Court.  The High Court, in  

1

2

Page 2

the impugned order, has made the following observations  with regard to the afore-stated Clause 64:

“In  the  present  case,  applicant  has  no  faith/trust in the officers of the railways who  were  intended  to  be  appointed  as  arbitrator.  Justice need not only be done but appears that  it has been done.  To maintain the principle of  impartiality, I am of the view that unreasonable  term of the Standard Form of Contract is not  binding on the applicant.  Therefore, applicant  is entitled to have an impartial and competent  arbitrator to solve the dispute in hand.”

As validity of the afore-stated clause was not one of  the issues before the High Court, in our opinion, the High  Court should not have made any observation on the said  clause and therefore, the afore-stated observation made by  the High Court in relation to Clause 64 is hereby quashed.

The  appeals  are,  therefore,  allowed  to  the  above  extent with no order as to costs.

                         ........................J.

                                          (ANIL R. DAVE)

                          ........................J.                                                  (AMITAVA ROY)

New Delhi March 09, 2015.

2