http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH CHIEF OFREVENUE, CENTRAL COALFIELDS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JANKI MAHTO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   287        1996 SCALE  (3)608

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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.