Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SMT. SATYAWATI AND ORS. on 12 January 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v.
SMT. SATYAWATI AND ORS.
JANUARY 12, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1952/rules:
S.8( I )(b )!Rule 9( I Hwartl--No action taken by claimants in commu-nicating the objections .for not al·cepting the award within the prescribed time-Hence omission to appoint Arbitrator not vitiated by error of lal-V-Where arbitrator appointed and award given parties to rise the rnlltentions before the High Court--Held : No imeiference called for by Supreme Court at this star,e.
C
D
Union of India & Ors. v. Mumha & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 289, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2364, 2361-62, 2365-66, 2363, 2367-78 of 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.87 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 755, 836-47, 879-83 and 927 in C.W.P. Nos. 6884-89, 6911-14, 6801, 6802, 6883, 5546, 5550, 6082, 6080, 5547 and 5549 of 1986.
F
V.C. Mahajan, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Ms. Anil Katiyar and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
S. M. Sarin, P.N. Puri, Sanjay Sarin and Ashok Mathur for the · Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to our notice that pursuant to the directions of the High Court, arbitrator had already been appointed and he gave his award. Against the H
\ \
!
465
U.0.1. v. SMT. SATYAWATI
award, appeals have been filed in the High Court and they are pending. Under these circumstances, it is open Lo the appellants to raise all the contentions raised in these appeals, in the High Court and the High Court would deal with and dispose them of according to law. Accordingly, we do not think that these are cases for our interference at this stage . .
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
C.A. Nos. 2364, 2365-66 & 2367-78 ~f 1996 (@ SLP Nm·. 5774, 5777-78 & 5781-92)
Leave granted.
The controversy raised in these cases is squarely covered by the judgment of this Courl in Union of India & Ors. v. Munsha & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 289. Following the judgment, we are constrained to hold that since no action has been taken by the claimants in communicating the objections for not accepting the award within the time prescribed under the law; it must be deemed that they have accepted the award. Consequently, the omission to appoint the arbitrator under Section 8(1 )(b) of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 read with Rule 9 (1) of the Rules made under that Act, is not vitiated by any error of law. The High Court, therefore, was not right . by directing in the impugned order the appointment of an arbitrator .
The appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court in the respective writ petitions is set aside. No costs.
G.N.
Appeals allowed.
A
B