SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 634

1996(5) Supreme 279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Karnal Improvement Trust -Appellant
versus
Ram Parkash & Ors.  -Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5259 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.2511 of 1994)
Decided on 21-3-1996

Headnote:Constitution of India-Art. 136-Appeal by Special Leave-On an earlier occasion Court had remanded self-same matter for determination of compensation of land-Pending determination, respondents filed Execution Application for realisation of certain amount due-Objection-Appellant stating that they had deposited more than what was due to respondents-Very award of the Tribunal has been set aside-Respondents cannot execute the decree until an award is made afresh-Any amount paid would be subject to the result in the award to be made. (Paras 2 & 3)

       

ORDER

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

Leave granted.

2. 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 this appeal by Special leave.

3. In an analogous situation when the very award of the Tribunal was questioned by the appellant, this Court in Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Smt. Parkash Wanti (Dead) & Anr.1 had 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.

4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

 

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top