Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH CHIEF OF REVENUE, CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD., RANCHIversusJANKI MAHTO AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 472
Decided: 2 April 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The High Court was justified in granting the interim stay of execution of the award.

Summary

The Union of India, through the Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Ltd., appealed against a Bihar High Court order that had granted an interim stay of execution of an award in favour of Janki Mahato and others. The High Court had also ordered service of notices on a large number of respondents. The sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in granting those interim directions. After considering the circumstances, the Court held that the High Court was correct in granting the interim stay of execution of the award. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, a stay pending the appeal was confirmed, and the High Court was directed to dispose of the matters expeditiously without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in granting the interim stay of execution of the award.

Subjects

interim stayexecution of awardappealcivil procedurehigh courtstay pending appeal

Judgment

      UNJON OF INDIA, THROUGH CHJEF OF REVENUE,                                 A
           CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD., RANCHI
                                     v.
                       JANK! MAHTO AND ORS.

                              APRIL 2, 1996
                                                                                B
           jK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.]

       Inte!im Stay-High Cowt-Appea/ against award-Held, High Cowt
should have granted inteiim stay of execution of the award-There shall be
stay pending appeal.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6980-7017
                                                                                c
of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.93 of the Bihar· High
Court in Misc. A. Nos. 495, 482, 470-71, 475, 493, 472, 479, 490, 485, 476,
~~~~~m,~~~~~~~i.m~~D
480, 477, 491, 497, 502, 498, 505, 499, 503, 500 and 501 of 1993.

      Sanjay Khaitan for 0.P. Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant.
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
      Leave granted.
                                                                                E
      Notice issued is sufficient service in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 6,
8-11, 14, 16, 18, 20-24, 28, 31, 34, 36-39, 41-45, 48-98, 100-109, 111
and-113. Notices sent with Acknowledgments Due have not been received
back. They must be deemed to have been served. Notice on respondent
Nos. 12, 13, 17, 33 and 47 have been received back without any date.
Thercfurl:, notice LHl then1 n1ust be tjccn1c<l lo have been served.            F

      The only question is : whether the High Court was justified in
granting the interim directions as prayed for. Jn view of the circun1stance
of the case, we think that the High Courl would have granted interim stay
of the execution of the award which is the subject matter of the appeals in
the High Court.                                                             G

     The appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be stay pending
appeal, as prayed for. The High Court is requested lo dis pose of the
appeals as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

                                                           Appeals allowed.     H
                                    1091

Search Indian case law

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

Try "interim stay"Sign in to search