1961 (2) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies remand order not final decision on rights

The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's remand order was not a final decision on the parties' rights but merely directed a retrial for a fair ... - Issues:1. Validity of arbitration awards under three contracts with the Government of the United Provinces.2. Jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer in arbitration disputes.3. Setting aside the awards by the Civil Judge, Lucknow.4. High Court's remand of cases for retrial.5. Competency of the High Court to grant a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.Analysis:The Supreme Court judgment dealt with three appeals regarding contracts for the supply of stone ballast between the appellants and the Government of the United Provinces. The contracts included an arbitration clause stating that disputes shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer, whose decision would be final. The Superintending Engineer made awards following disputes, which the appellants sought to set aside, arguing that the contracts were fully performed, and disputes could not arise post-performance. The Civil Judge, Lucknow, upheld the awards' validity, leading to appeals to the High Court. The High Court remanded the cases for retrial, citing improper notice and a need for a fair trial process. The High Court granted a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution for appeal to the Supreme Court, but the competency of this action was questioned.The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's remand order was not a final decision on the parties' rights, merely directing a retrial for a fair process. The Court highlighted that the order for retrial did not raise significant legal questions justifying a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c). The Court emphasized that the High Court's direction for retrial on fresh pleadings and all arising issues indicated a trial de novo, where any previous decisions would not be binding. The Supreme Court found no substantial legal question raised by the High Court's observations, especially since the matter was directed for retrial, making the grant of a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) unwarranted.Ultimately, the Supreme Court vacated the certificate granted by the High Court and dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision for retrial. The Court emphasized the need for a fair trial process and the absence of significant legal questions justifying an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants were directed to bear the costs of the appeals, including a hearing fee.