CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2015 › U.O.I v. Gurdayal Singh

U.O.I v. Gurdayal Singh

Supreme Court of India · 9 March 2015

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
9 March 2015
Case no.
C.A. No. 2865-2866 of 2015
Bench
Anil R. Dave, Amitava Roy
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

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

ORDER

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

JUDGMENT

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.

Ask CaseMinister about U.O.I v. Gurdayal Singh

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp