A High Court judgment does not merge with a Supreme Court order dismissing an SLP without reasons; such summary dismissal does not curtail the High Court’s review powers. This precedent affirms the limited grounds for review under CPC, clarifies the effect of Supreme Court SLP dismissals, and sets binding guidance on the competence of Arbitrators post-remand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RP/115/2022 of UNION OF INDIA TH CHIEF ENGINEER Vs M/S D KHOSLA AND COMPANY; CNR JKHC020045402022 |
| Date of Registration | 15-09-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; clarifies binding effect of SLP dismissal and review scope. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and V. Senthur v. M. Vijaykumar on merger and review law. |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Arbitration; Jurisdiction of Review; Doctrine of Merger |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that mere dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court without reasons does not operate as merger, nor does it preclude the High Court from reviewing its own order under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The limited grounds for review—error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reason—remain intact, and review proceedings are not equivalent to an appeal. The Supreme Court’s summary SLP dismissal carries no declaratory force under Article 141 nor triggers merger, thus the High Court’s original judgment remains open to review. The Court clarified that remitting claims to an Arbitrator after finding them contrary to contract terms amounts to an error apparent on the record; such claims are beyond arbitral competence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala; V. Senthur and another v. M. Vijaykumar and another. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court recited grounds for review as per Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and cited Supreme Court jurisprudence on the doctrine of merger and the legal effect of SLP dismissals, particularly the binding but non-merger effect of reasonless dismissals. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Union of India sought review of the High Court’s order in CFA No. 18/2014 that had erroneously remitted specific contract claims (1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 16) to the Arbitrator after already holding them contrary to contractual terms. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP to oppose review, arguing merger. The Court rejected this, clarified the legal effect of SLP dismissal, and set aside the remand of such claims to the Arbitrator, restricting remand only to claim 13. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Arbitration forums on the issue of doctrine of merger and review post-SLP dismissal |
| Follows | Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala; V. Senthur v. M. Vijaykumar |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that summary dismissal of an SLP (without reasons) by the Supreme Court does not trigger the doctrine of merger or bar the High Court from exercising review jurisdiction.
- Restates that review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is strictly limited to error apparent on record, discovery of new evidence, or similar sufficient reasons—review is not a backdoor appeal.
- Explicitly holds that Arbitrators cannot re-adjudicate contract claims already held to be beyond the contract’s terms or outside arbitral jurisdiction; such remand is a nullity.
- Lawyers opposing or seeking review post-SLP dismissal can rely on this decision to counter merger/maintainability objections.
- Any award by an Arbitrator on claims remanded erroneously (and outside contract terms) is expressly held non est in law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court restated the settled legal position from Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala that dismissal of an SLP without reasons does not result in merger of the impugned order with that of the Supreme Court.
- Citing V. Senthur v. M. Vijaykumar, the judgment reiterates that only a reasoned SLP dismissal with a declaration of law has Article 141 force; otherwise, dismissal by non-speaking order leaves the impugned order intact and open to review by the High Court.
- Examined whether grounds relied upon for review—specifically, the inadvertent remand of claims found contrary to contract—constituted an error apparent, and found that it did.
- Emphasised that review jurisdiction is not appellate and must be confined to errors manifest on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or analogous grounds (Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC).
- Recalled the earlier judgment to the extent specific claims (1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 16) were remitted, restricting remand only to claim 13, making clear that the Arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims contractually excluded.
- Held that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP neither precluded review nor provided substantive law under Article 141, given absence of reasons.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union of India):
- The High Court committed error apparent on record by remitting contract claims to the Arbitrator despite finding them squarely barred by contract terms.
- Such remand is not permissible; claims outside contract are outside Arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Respondent (M/s D. Khosla & Co.):
- The judgment dated 09.05.2022 cannot be reviewed due to the doctrine of merger, since the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP arising from the same judgment.
- Relied on V. Senthur v. M. Vijaykumar to argue that review is impermissible post-SLP dismissal.
Factual Background
Union of India brought a review petition before the High Court challenging its prior order in CFA No. 18/2014, wherein several contract claims (1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 16) had been mistakenly remitted to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication, despite those claims being previously held as contractually unsustainable. The respondent objected, citing a Supreme Court SLP dismissal, arguing that review was not permissible due to merger. The High Court considered the grounds and clarified the correct scope of review in light of Supreme Court precedents.
Statutory Analysis
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: The Court clarified that review jurisdiction under CPC is extremely limited, confined to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason ejusdem generis.
- The judgment discusses that “other sufficient reason” must be read in line with the other grounds, i.e., not permitting an appeal in disguise.
- Cites and applies precedents on the doctrine of merger (from Supreme Court) to the effect of SLP dismissals.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded; the judgment reflects a single-judge bench’s reasoned decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court clarifies procedure on maintainability of review petitions after SLP dismissal, providing clear guidance that non-speaking SLP dismissals do not affect review jurisdiction.
- Explicit procedural direction that Arbitrators cannot adjudicate remanded claims already held contractually unsustainable.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s position on doctrine of merger and review powers applied and explained.