Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSMT. SATYAWATI AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 60
Decided: 12 January 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

If claimants do not communicate objections to an award within the time prescribed, the award is deemed accepted and the omission to appoint an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, read with Rule 9(1) is not vitiated by any error of law.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by the Union of India against High Court orders directing the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The claimants had not raised any objections to the arbitrator's award within the time prescribed by Rule 9(1), which the Court held to amount to acceptance of the award. Consequently, the omission to appoint an arbitrator was not vitiated by any error of law. The Court found the High Court's direction to appoint an arbitrator erroneous and set aside those orders. The appeals were allowed and the High Court orders were vacated without costs.

Issues considered

Whether failure to communicate objections to an award within the prescribed time under Rule 9(1) constitutes acceptance of the award.
Whether the omission to appoint an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, is vitiated by an error of law in such circumstances.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appointment of an arbitrator despite the deemed acceptance of the award.

Legislation cited

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952s. 8(1)(b)

Subjects

ArbitrationAward acceptanceRequisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property ActSection 8Rule 9High CourtError of lawAppointment of arbitrator

Judgment

                                                                                   \   \

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-
C   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.

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,
H   arbitrator had already been appointed and he gave his award. Against the
                                        464
 !
                                  U.0.1. v. SMT. SATYAWATI                      465
         award, appeals have been filed in the High Court and they are pending.         A
         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 .
                                                                                        B
                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.
                                                                                        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    D
         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       E
         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.




l(

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Arbitration"Sign in to search