Union Of India & Ors vs Smt. Satyawati & Ors
- SCC(1996) 7 SCC 740
- Neutral1996 INSC 60
- SCR[1996] 1 SCR 464
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a claimant fails to communicate objections to an arbitral award within the time prescribed by law, the claimant is deemed to have accepted the award, and the omission to appoint an 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 thereunder is not vitiated by any error of law. Where proceedings are pending before the High Court following an arbitrator's award, and the appellants have an opportunity to raise all contentions in those pending proceedings, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the matter at that stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 award, appeals, have been filed in the High Court and they are pending. Under these circumstances, it is open to 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 appeal are accordingly dismissed. No costs. C.A. Nos. 2364, 2365-66 & 2367-78
--------------------------------- [@ SLP Nos. 5774, 5777-78 & 5781-92] Leave granted.
The controversy raised in these cases is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court 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) 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 appeal are allowed. The order of the High court in the respective writ petitions is set aside. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free