Union of India, Through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Vs. Janki Mahto & Ors [1996] INSC 484 (2 April 1996)
Ramaswamy, K.Ramaswamy, K. G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION: JT 1996 (4) 287 1996 SCALE (3)608
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
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 Acknowledgements 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.
Therefore, notice on them must be deemed to have been served.
The only question is: whether the High Court was justified in granting the interim directions as prayed for.
In view of the circumstances of the case, we think that the High Court would have granted interim stay of the execution of the award which is the subject matter of the appeals in the High Court.
The appeals are accordingly allowed, There shall be stay pending appeal, as prayed for. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
