UNION OF INDIA versus PRINCE MUFFAKAM JAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 20-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA 
v 
PRINCE MUFFAKAM JAH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 20, 1994 
[N!.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ!, S. MOHAN 
AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 194(}-Section 15/ 16--Dispute relating to jewels belong-
ing to two trusts-Arbitration Award-Validity of-:Petition u/s 15/16--Ap-
C plication for il)terpretation-No public interest involved-Intervenor signed 
reference and pµrticipated throughout in arbitration proceedings-fntervention 
Application misconceived and devoid of merit. 
D 
Constitution of India-Article 363-Merger Agreement dated 25th 
January 195Q-Dispute arising out of-Jurisdiction of Courts. 
The maiji dispute related to the jewels belonging to the two trusts. 
The dispute was referred to arbitration. There was a divergence of opinion 
between the two arbitrators and the matter was referred to the nmpire. 
The Award was submitted to this Court for appropriate orders. The Union 
E of India filed a petition u/s 15/16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, questioning 
the validity an~ correctness of the Award. The trustees also filed a petition 
u/s 15/16 of th~ Act. Pending adjndication of these interlocutory applica· 
lions the present application for intervention bad been filed seeking to 
restrain the Union of India from making any payment of the amount to 
the Nizam of Hydm1bad for the purchase of the Jacob Diamond and other 
F 
priceless jewels which, according to him, were State property, to appoint 
commission to Investigate into the true ownership of those jewels claimed 
to be the private property of the Nizam of Hyderabad, declare the Jacob 
Diamond as private property of Nizam of Hyderabad as State property 
and declare tlie priceless jewels as regalia and antiqnities and art 
G treasnres. 
The intei:-venors claiming to be public-spirited citizens urged that 
there was a cl~r conceptual division between the Nizam's personal' and 
private property and the State property. The Jacob Diamond which the 
Union of India was offering to purchase was the property of the State of 
H Hyderabad and, thus, of the nation and not the personal property of the 
582 
U.0.1. v. MUFFAKAM JAH [MOHAN, J.] 
583 
Nlzam of Hyderabad. There were other priceless jewels which constitut,d A 
regalia and, therefore, they were State Jewels. The sons and successors of 
Nizam could not claim such Regalia as the private property merely because 
they were inherited as heirloons. Most of the priceless jewels of ihe Nizam 
were antiquities and were treasures in view of their being over hundred 
years old as such were the priceless remains of nation's cultural heritage B 
and were entitled to protection and preservation for the benefit of the 
nation and its citizens. 
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Trust, preliminary objec· 
lion was taken that the application for intervention was motivated and 
misconceive and the reliefs sought for by the intervenors fell outside the C 
purview of the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the provisions of Article 
363 of the Constitution of India. It was stated that the application con· 
tained gross misrepresentation. In fact, identical contentions regarding 
the ownership were taken by the Union of India when Intervenor was 
closely involved with and participated in the arbitration proceedings. D 
These contentions were dismissed by the Court on two occasions as well 
as by the Umpire. Ownership of the items of jewellery of the trusts was 
questioned by the Union of India even in the objections filed against the 
Award. A white .. paper was also drawn up and presented to parliament. 
Therefore, according to the Trust it was not open to any one now to raise 
dispute on the ownership. If, at all, the dispute could be raised only by the E 
Ruler. 
Dismissing the application, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The applicants had no locus standi to seek intervention, F 
that too; at this belated stage. Besides, there was no public interest 
involved. Invervenor No. 4 as early as in 1991, in his capacity as Director 
General, National Museum, not only signed the reference but participated 
throughout the arbitration proceedings. The case of the applicants that . 
the various items of the jewellery constituted the private property of the 
Nizam was without merit. In fact, there were applications by Union of India G 
raising the same issue. Those applications were dismissed. Before the 
Umpire also an application was filed raising the contention that these 
items of jewellery had vested in the State and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.