RAJESHWAR CHAUDHARY Vs. GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is aggrieved by a judgment of this Court dated 3rd November, 1980 in FAFO Nos. 472 of 1972 and 473 of 1972. He wishes to file an appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. He has accordingly made this application praying for grant of a certificate to the effect that the case is fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2.) THE application for certificate is dated 1st January, 1981. Learned counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application. Article 133 of the Costitution lays down that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article 134-A that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court Article 134-A of the Costitution provides that every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in Article 133 of the Constitution may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion, and shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in clause (1) of Article 133 may be given in respect of that case.

(3.) ONE of the questions that arose for consideration in this case was as to whether in a case covered by section 9 of the Arbitration Act wherein the parties agree to refer their dispute to two arbitrators-one to be appointed by each party and one of the parties after appointing its arbitrator gives notice to the other party to appoint its arbitrator and the party to which notice is given fails to appoint its arbitrator within fifteen days of the notice, it altogether loses its right to appoint an arbitrator after fifteen days and whether such second party can exercise its right to nominate its arbitrator beyond fifteen days but before the party giving notice had appointed its arbitrator, to act as a sole arbitrator. This question, in our opinion, is a question of law of general importance. As the question is likely to arise in a large number of cases all over the country and as no pronouncement of the Supreme Court has, in this regard, been brought to our notice, we think that this question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.