K. AYYAVU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND SOLE ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length, who contends that the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the proceedings can be undertaken by way of arbitration would be a far- fetched remedy keeping in view the long standing litigation, which the appellants had to pursue for the purpose of seeking their rightful claim. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of the Court to the merits of the claim to contend that ex facie such a claim could not have been denied and therefore, the appellants should not be compelled to undertake the process as suggested by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Having considered the submissions raised and the past litigation as well as the further fact that in respect of solatium and such other amounts, the matter has already reached the Apex Court at the instance of the appellants, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, however without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to seek remedy as indicated in the impugned judgment or otherwise in accordance with law. It will be open to the appellants to press for such payments as may be permissible and admissible either under the provisions of law or under any adjudication already made between the parties, including any inter-parties judgment, in respect of any such amount that can be claimed under law.

(3.) The appeal is disposed of with the said observation. No costs.