Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SMT. SATYAWATI AND ORS.

Decided
12 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 464 · 1996 INSC 60
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 464, margin G

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

p. 464, margin G

U.0.1. SMT. SATYAWATI 465 award, appeals have been filed in the High Court and they are pending. Under these circumstances, it is open 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 .

p. 465

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. C.A. Nos. 2364, 2365-66 & 2367-78 ~f 1996 (@ SLP Nm·. 5774, 5777-78 & 5781-92)

p. 465, margin B

Leave granted.

p. 465, margin C

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 .

p. 465, margin C

The appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court in the respective writ petitions is set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.

p. 465, margin E