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

KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus RAM PARKASH AND ORS.

Decided
21 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 767 · 1996 INSC 422

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.

Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing on behalf of the respondents.

p. 767, margin G

Leave granted.

p. 767, margin G

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993 on December 14, 1993. It is not necessary to dilate upon all the material facts. Suffice it to state that this Court on an earlier occasion had remanded the self-same matter for determination of the compensation of the Phar land. Pending the determination, the respondents filed Execution Application for realisation of certain amount said to be due. The appellant-Trust filed objection stating that the appellant had deposited more than what was due to the respondents. Therefore, the execution application deserves to be dismissed. The objection was over-ruled and on revision, the High Court confirmed the same. Thus appeal by special leave.

pp. 767–768, margin G

In an analogous situation when the very award of the Tribunal was questioned by the appellant, this Court in Kamal Improvement Trust, Kamal v. Parkash Wanti (Dead) & Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151 bad held that the judgment of the Tribunal without there being participation by the other members, is illegal and non est. Accordingly, it was set aside. Consequently, in law as on date, there is no award in existence. Resultantly, the respondents cannot execute the decree until an award is made afresh in accordance with law. The appellant admittedly had deposited the amount pending revision in the High Court. In view of the fact that the award was set aside, any amount paid would be subject to the result in the award that could be made by the Tribunal under the Act.

p. 768, margin B

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

p. 768, margin D