Union of India & Ors Vs. Smt. Satyawati
& Ors  INSC 60 (12 January 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (1) 674 1996 SCALE (1)SP34
O R D
C.A. Nos. 2361-62, & 2363 of 1996 [@
SLP Nos. 5775-76 & 5780/88]
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.
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.
are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Nos. 2364, 2365-66 & 2367-78 --------------------------------- [@ SLP Nos.
5774, 5777-78 & 5781-92] Leave granted.
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  (b) the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act, 1952 read with Rule 9  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.
are allowed. The order of the High court in the respective writ petitions is
set aside. No costs.