U.O.I & ORS Vs. GURDAYAL SINGH

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 2865-2866 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 09, 2015

                                                              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 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.