{"id":103299,"date":"2007-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007"},"modified":"2015-10-17T09:40:45","modified_gmt":"2015-10-17T04:10:45","slug":"punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5197 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nPunjab State and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDina Nath\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nTarun Chatterjee & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
W I T H
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.5198 OF 2000
\nThe Executive Engineer, Anandpur
\nSahib Hydel Construction Division
\n VERSUS
\nDina Nath and Ors. Respondents    <\/p>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe crucial question that needs to be decided in these
\nappeals is whether Clause 4 of Work Order No.114 dated 16th of
\nMay, 1985 (in short ‘Work Order’) which says that: “Any dispute
\narising between the department and the contractor\/society shall be
\nreferred to the Superintending Engineer, Anandpur Sahib, Hydel
\nCircle No. 1 Chandigarh for orders and his decision will be final
\nand acceptable\/binding on both the parties” constituted an
\narbitration agreement.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBefore proceeding further, we may bring it on record
\nthat though the facts in both the appeals are identical, but for
\npurposes of disposal of these appeals, the facts in CA No. 5197 are
\nbeing considered which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe parties entered into a contract for the work of
\ndowel drain and wire crate at RD No. 9400 to 10400 kms. in the
\nState of Punjab. The appellants made running payments to the
\nrespondent during the period of execution of the works in terms of
\nthe Work Order. However, after completion of the work, the final
\nmeasurements were not made, nor the final bills were prepared.
\nThe dispute remained pending with the department for which the
\nrespondent called upon the appellants to finalise the dispute and
\nprepare the final bill as per the rates quoted by the respondent and
\naccepted by the appellants. A final notice was issued on 16th April,
\n1990, calling upon the appellants to refer the dispute to an
\narbitrator as per Clause 4 of the Work Order. Since the appellants
\nhad failed to appoint an Arbitrator, the respondent filed an
\napplication before the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar,
\nPunjab under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short ‘the
\nAct’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBy an order dated 20th October, 1993 the learned
\nAdditional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar, Punjab after hearing
\nboth the parties, allowed the application filed by the respondent
\nand referred the dispute for decision to the Superintending
\nEngineer, Anandpur Sahib, Hydel Circle No. 1 Chandigarh. The
\nAdditional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar, while allowing the
\napplication, held that Clause 4 of the Work Order must be
\nconstrued to be an arbitration agreement within the meaning of
\nSection 2(a) of the Act and that the application filed under Section
\n20 of the Act was filed within the period of limitation. According
\nto the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar, the
\ncause of action arose from the date the final notice of demand was
\nsent, i.e., 16th April 1990, which was well within the period of 3
\nyears from the date of filing the application as contemplated under
\nArticle 137 of the Limitation Act 1963.  Feeling aggrieved by the
\naforesaid order, the appellants preferred an appeal in the Court of
\nthe District Judge, Roopnagar, Punjab, which by an order dated
\n24th April, 1997 was allowed, inter alia, on a finding that Clause 4
\nof the Work Order could not be held to be an ‘arbitration
\nagreement’ nor the dispute was covered within the ambit of the
\nAct. On the question of limitation in filing the application under
\nSection 20 of the Act, the appellate court held that the application
\nunder   Section 20 of the Act was barred by limitation. Feeling
\naggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge,
\nRoopnagar, Punjab, reversing the order of the Additional Senior
\nSubordinate Judge, Ropar, the respondent filed a Civil Revision
\nCase before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,
\nwhich by the impugned order was allowed and the order of the
\nAdditional Subordinate Judge, Ropar was restored. Dissatisfied
\nwith this order of the High Court, a special leave petition was filed
\nby the appellants, which on grant of leave was heard in the
\npresence of the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tHaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and
\nafter going through the impugned order of the High Court as well
\nas the orders of the appellate court and the trial court and the
\nmaterials on record and considering the clauses in the Work Order,
\nwe are of the view that the High Court was fully justified in setting
\naside the order of the appellate court and restoring the order of the
\nAdditional Subordinate Judge by which the dispute was referred to
\narbitration for decision. Before proceeding further, we may,
\nhowever, take note of some of the relevant clauses in the Work
\nOrder which read as under: –\n<\/p>\n
“Clause 13 of the Work Order: – “If the contractor does not carry
\nout the work as per the registered specifications, the department
\nwill have the option to employ its own labour or any other agency
\nto being the work to the departmental specification and recover the
\ncost therefrom.”\n<\/p>\n
Clause 4: “Any dispute arising between the department and the
\ncontractor\/society shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer,
\nAnandpur Sahib, Hydel Construct Circle No. 1, Chandigarh for
\norders and his decision will be final and acceptable\/binding on both
\nparties.”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAs pointed out herein earlier, the trial court on
\nconsideration of Clause 4 of the Work Order held that Clause 4 of
\nthe Work Order must be held to be an arbitration agreement and
\naccordingly an arbitrator was appointed in compliance with Clause
\n4 of the Work Order \tAt this stage we feel it appropriate to
\nexamine in detail whether clause 4 of the Work Order can be held
\nto be an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(a)
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tSection 2[a] of the Act defines ‘arbitration agreement’
\nwhich means a written agreement to submit present or future
\ndifferences to arbitration whether arbitrator is named therein or not.
\nMr. Tathore learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellants contended that although the Work Order
\nwas allotted to the respondent on 16th May, 1985, the respondent
\nhad failed to execute the work allotted to him and the appellants
\nhad got the work executed at its own cost in terms of clause 13 of
\nthe Work Order which, as noted herein earlier, provides that in case
\nthe contractor does not execute the allotted work, the department
\ncould get the same executed by other agencies or by itself.  He
\nfurther contended that owing to such failure on the part of the
\nrespondent, final bills were not prepared nor were the final
\nmeasurements taken for the purpose of payment to the respondent.
\nAccordingly, Mr. Tathore contended that there was no existence of
\nany dispute and accordingly the question of referring such disputes
\nin terms of Clause 4 of the Work Order could not arise at all.  This
\nsubmission of Mr. Tathore was contested by the learned counsel
\nfor the respondent.  Therefore, a dispute arose as to whether the
\nrespondent had completed the work allotted to him under the Work
\nOrder.  This is an issue, according to the High Court as well as the
\nSubordinate Court, which should be referred for decision to an
\narbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tA bare perusal of the definition of arbitration
\nagreement would clearly show that an arbitration agreement is not
\nrequired to be in any particular form.  What is required to be
\nascertained is whether the parties have agreed that if any dispute
\narises between them in respect of the subject matter of the contract,
\nsuch dispute shall be referred to arbitration.  In that case such
\nagreement would certainly spell out an arbitration agreement. [See
\nRupmani Bai Gupta v. Collector of Jabalpur AIR<\/a> 1981 SC 479]
\nHowever, from the definition of the arbitration agreement, it is also
\nclear that the agreement must be in writing and to interpret the
\nagreement as an ‘arbitration agreement’ one has to ascertain the
\nintention of the parties and also treatment of the decision as final. If
\nthe parties had desired and intended that a dispute must be referred
\nto arbitration for decision and they would undertake to abide by
\nthat decision, there cannot be any difficulty to hold that the
\nintention of the parties to have an arbitration agreement; that is to
\nsay, an arbitration agreement immediately comes into existence.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn the case of Bihar State Mineral Development
\nCorporation v. Encon Building,<\/a> [(2003) 7 SCC 418], this Court
\nheld that “there is no dispute with regard to the proposition that for
\nthe purpose of construing an arbitration agreement, the term
\n“arbitration” is not required to be specifically mentioned therein.”
\nLooking to the opinion of the Hon’ble Judges in the said case and
\nalso considering clause 4 of the Work Order in depth, we are of the
\nopinion that Clause 4 of the Work Order between the parties can be
\ninterpreted to be an arbitration agreement even though the term
\n“arbitration” is not expressly mentioned in the agreement. In this
\ndecision of this Court the test of ‘dispute’ and ‘reference’ was
\nagain reiterated. In Para 17, it was stated that there cannot be any
\ndoubt whatsoever that an arbitration agreement must contain broad
\nconsensus between the parties that the disputes and differences
\nshould be referred to a domestic tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tWe have already noted Clause 4 of the Work Order as
\ndiscussed hereinabove.  It is true that in the aforesaid Clause 4 of
\nthe Work Order the words “arbitration” and “arbitrator” are not
\nindicated; but in our view, omission to mention the words
\n“arbitration” and “arbitrator” as noted herein earlier cannot be a
\nground to hold that the said clause was not an arbitration agreement
\nwithin the meaning of Section 2[a] of the Act.  The essential
\nrequirements as pointed out herein earlier are that the parties have
\nintended to make a reference to an arbitration and treat the decision
\nof the arbitrator as final.  As the conditions to constitute an
\n‘arbitration agreement’ have been satisfied, we hold that clause 4
\nof the Work Order must be construed to be an arbitration
\nagreement and dispute raised by the parties must be referred to the
\narbitrator. In the case of K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi<\/a> [(1998) 3 SCC
\n573], this Court had laid down the test as to when a clause can be
\nconstrued to be an arbitration agreement when it appears from the
\nsame that there was an agreement between the parties that any
\ndispute shall be referred to the arbitrator. This would be clear when
\nwe read Para 17 of the said judgment and points 5 and 6 of the
\nsame which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5. That the agreement of the parties to refer their
\ndisputes to the decision of the tribunal must be intended to
\nbe enforceable in law; and\n<\/p>\n
6. Agreement must contemplate that the tribunal will
\nmake a decision upon a dispute, which is already formulated
\nat the time when reference is made to tribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThat apart, in Para 23 of the decision in the case of
\nK.K. Modi (supra), this Court also noticed its earlier decision in the
\ncase of State of U.P. v Tippar Chand [1980 (3) SCC 241]. In that
\ncase, the test as indicated above was also recorded in which it was
\nstated that “this court said that there was no mention in this clause
\nin any dispute much less any reference thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tKeeping the ingredients as indicated by this Court in
\nthe case of K. K. Modi (supra) in mind for holding a particular
\nagreement as an arbitration agreement, we now proceed to examine
\nthe aforesaid ingredients in the context of the present case.
\na.\tClause 4 of the Work Order categorically states that the
\ndecision of the Superintending Engineer shall be binding on the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
b.\tThe jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer to decide
\nthe rights of the parties has also been derived from the consent of
\nthe parties to the Work Order.\n<\/p>\n
c.\tThe agreement contemplates that the Superintending
\nEngineer shall determine substantive rights of parties as the clause
\nencompasses all varieties of disputes that may arise between the
\nparties and does not restrict the jurisdiction of the Superintending
\nEngineer to specific issues only.\n<\/p>\n
d.\tThat the agreement of the parties to refer their disputes to
\nthe decision of the Superintending Engineer is intended to be
\nenforceable in law as it is binding in nature.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn view of the aforesaid conditions being satisfied,
\nwhich were based on the principles laid down by this Court in K.K.
\nModi’s case (supra), there cannot be any doubt in our mind that the
\narbitration agreement does exist. Clause 4 of the Work Order is an
\nArbitration Agreement. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the appellants contended that the ingredients laid down in the
\ncase of K.K. Modi are not satisfied in the present case and
\ntherefore following the principles laid down in that case, this Court
\nmust hold that clause 4 of the Work order cannot be construed as
\nan arbitration agreement. We are unable to accept this contention
\nof the learned counsel of the appellants for two reasons. First, in
\nview of our discussions herein earlier, to the effect that all the
\ningredients to hold a particular agreement as an arbitration
\nagreement have been satisfied in the preset case. Secondly, the
\nfactual situations in the case of KK Modi (supra) and in the case
\nbefore us are very different. That case dealt with the evaluation and
\ndistribution of assets, which required expert decision rather than
\narbitration. The clause in the K.K Modi case (supra) had a very
\nrestricted operation as it dealt with only disputes regarding
\nimplementation of contract whereas, in the case before us, Clause 4
\nis much wider in its ambit as it deals with any dispute between the
\ncontractor and the department.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe words “any dispute” appears in Clause 4 of the
\nWork Order.  Therefore only on the basis of the materials produced
\nby the parties in support of their respective claims a decision can be
\narrived at in resolving the dispute between the parties. The use of
\nthe words ‘any dispute’ in Clause 4 of the Work Order is wide
\nenough to include all disputes relating to the said Work Order.
\nTherefore, when a party raises a dispute for non-payment of money
\nafter completion of the work, which is denied by the other party,
\nsuch a dispute would come within the meaning of ‘arbitration
\nagreement’ between the parties.  Clause 4 of the Work Order also
\nclearly provides that any dispute between the department and the
\ncontractor shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Hydel
\nCircle No. 1, Chandigarh for orders. The word ‘orders’ would
\nindicate some expression of opinion, which is to be carried out, or
\nenforced and which is a conclusion of a body (in this case
\nSuperintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No. 1, Chandigarh). Then
\nagain the conclusion and decision of the Superintending Engineer
\nwill be final and binding on both the parties. This being the
\nposition in the present case and in view of the fact that Clause 4 of
\nthe Work Order is not under challenge before us, the decision that
\nwould be arrived at by Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.
\n1, Chandigarh must also be binding on the parties as a result
\nwhereof Clause 4 must be held to be a binding arbitration
\nagreement.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn the decision of this Court in the case of State of UP
\nv. Tippar Chand (supra), this Court however held that the clause
\nin dispute in that decision between the parties did not amount to an
\narbitration agreement.  In that decision, this Court further held that
\nclause under consideration before them which provided that except
\nwhere otherwise specified in the contract the decision of the
\nSuperintending Engineer for the time being shall be final,
\nconclusive and binding on all the parties to the contract upon all
\nquestions relating to the meaning of the specifications etc and the
\ndecision of the Superintending Engineer as to the quality,
\nworkmanship etc. shall be final, conclusive and binding between
\nthe parties does not constitute an arbitration agreement but while
\narriving at such a conclusion this Court referred to a decision of the
\nJammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of  Dewan Chand v.
\nState of Jammu and Kashmir<\/a>  [AIR 1961  J & K 58]. In the
\nDewan Chand case (supra) the relevant clause runs as follows:- ”
\nFor any dispute between the contractor and the Department the
\ndecision of the Chief Engineer PWD Jammu and Kashmir, will be
\nfinal and binding upon the contractor.  This Court in that decision
\nhad put strong reliance on the expression “any dispute between the
\ncontractor and the department” and approved the conclusions
\narrived at by the J & K High Court.  It came to the conclusion by
\ninterpretation of that clause that there did not exist any arbitration
\nagreement as the decision of the Superintending Engineer in
\nconnection with the work done by the contractor was meant for
\nsupervision and execution of the work and administrative control
\nover it from time to time.  However, in Clause 4 of the Work Order
\nin the present case, which specifically states that in case of any
\ndispute between the appellants and the contracting parties, the
\nmatter shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer. Therefore,
\nthe use of the words “any dispute” would clearly mean that it
\nwould lead to conclude that the said agreement was in fact an
\narbitration agreement and thus these words do not restrict the scope
\nof the contract.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tBefore parting with this aspect of the matter we may
\nnote the decision of State of Orissa v.  Damodar Das<\/a>  [1996(2)
\nSCC 216] on which strong reliance was placed before us by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants. This decision of this court may
\nnot be helpful to the appellants as we find the agreement in
\nquestion in that case was different from Clause 4 of the Work
\nOrder. For proper appreciation, we may reproduce the agreement in
\nthe case of Damodar Das which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“25. Decision of Public Health Engineer to be final –
\nExcept where otherwise specified in this contract, the
\ndecision of the Public Health Engineer for the time being
\nshall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the
\ncontract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the
\nspecifications; drawings and instructions hereinbefore
\nmentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials
\nused on the work, or as to any other question, claim, right,
\nmatter or thing, whatsoever in any way arising our of, or
\nrelating to, the contract, drawings specifications estimates,
\ninstructions, orders or these conditions, or otherwise
\nconcerning the works or the execution or failure to execute
\nthe same, whether arising during the progress of the work or
\nafter the completion or the sooner determination thereof of
\nthe contract.”\n<\/p>\n
17.\tA plain reading of this clause in the case of Damodar
\nDas, it is evident that the powers of the Public Health Engineer
\nwere essentially to supervise and inspect. His powers were limited
\nto the questions relating to the meaning of the specifications;
\ndrawings and instructions, quality of workmanship or materials
\nused on the work, or any other question, claim, right, matter,
\ndrawings specifications estimates, instructions, orders or these
\nconditions, or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or
\nfailure to execute the same. However, in the case before us, the
\nSuperintending Engineer was given full power to resolve any
\ndispute arising between the parties which power in our view is
\nwide enough to cover any nature of dispute raised by the parties.
\nThe Clause in the instant case categorically mentions the word
\n“dispute” which would be referred to him and states “his decision
\nwould be final and acceptable\/binding on both the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThat being the position, we are of the view that the
\nclause in the case of Damodar Das and Clause 4 of the Work Order
\nof the present case are totally different. We accordingly do not find
\nany reason to hold otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tAt the risk of repetition we may also say before
\nparting with this judgment that Clause 4 of the Work Order speaks
\nfor a dispute between the parties.  It also speaks of a dispute and all
\nsuch disputes between the parties to the Work Order shall be
\ndecided by the Superintending Engineer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel
\nCircle No. 1.  Obviously, such decision can be reached by the
\nSuperintending Engineer, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Circle No. 1 only
\nwhen it is referred to him by either party for decision.  The
\nreference is also implied.  As the Superintending Engineer will
\ndecide the matter on reference, there cannot be any doubt that he
\nhas to act judicially and decide the dispute after hearing both the
\nparties and permitting them to state their claim by adducing
\nmaterials in support.  In Clause 4 of the Work Order it is also
\nprovided as noted herein earlier that the decision of the
\nSuperintending Engineer shall be final and such agreement was
\nbinding between the parties and decision shall also bind both the
\nparties.  Therefore, the result would be that the decision of the
\nSuperintending Engineer would be finally binding on the parties.
\nAccordingly, in our view, as discussed herein above that although
\nthe expression “award” or “arbitration” does not appear in Clause 4
\nof the Work Order even then such expression as it stands in Clause
\n4 of the Work Order embodies an arbitration clause which can be
\nenforced.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tFor the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that
\nClause 4 of the Work Order can safely be interpreted to be an
\narbitration agreement even though the term ‘arbitration’ is not
\nexpressly mentioned in the agreement. In view of our discussions
\nmade herein earlier, we therefore conclude that Clause 4 of the
\nWork Order constitutes an arbitration agreement and if any dispute
\narises, such dispute shall be referred to Superintendent Engineer for
\ndecision which shall be binding on the parties.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tBefore parting with this judgment, we may consider a
\nshort submission advanced at the Bar on the question of limitation
\nin filing the application under Section 20 of the Act. At the risk of
\nrepetition, we may keep it on record that the Additional Senior
\nSubordinate Judge, Ropar, held that the application was filed in
\ntime whereas the appellate court held that the application was
\nbarred by limitation. However, the High Court in revision restored
\nthe order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar, by
\nholding that application was filed within the period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t For the purpose of deciding the question of limitation,
\nit may be stated that the application under Section 20 of the Act
\nwas filed within 3 years from the date the demand notice was made
\nby the respondent as contemplated under Article 137 of the
\nLimitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tIn order to determine when the cause of action arose,
\nit is essential for us to refer to a case decided by this court. In the
\ncase of S. Rajan v. State of Kerala<\/a> [(1992) 3 SCC 608] it was
\nheld by this Court that the right to apply for arbitration proceeding
\nunder Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 runs from the date
\nwhen the dispute arises. It observed:\n<\/p>\n
“Reading Article 137 and Sub-section (1) of Section 20
\ntogether, it must be said that the right to apply accrues when the
\ndifference arises or differences arise, as the case may be, between
\nthe parties. It is thus a question of fact to be determined in each
\ncase having regard to the facts of that case.”\n<\/p>\n
24.\tAccepting the principles laid down in the case of S.
\nRajan (supra), this Court in the case of Hari Shankar Singhania
\nand Ors. v. Gaur Hari Singhania and Ors.<\/a> [(2006) 4 SCC 658]
\nagain reiterated the principle that an application under section 20 of
\nthe Act for filing the arbitration agreement in Court and for
\nreference of the dispute to arbitration in accordance therewith is
\nrequired to be filed within a period of three years when the right to
\napply accrues and that the said right accrues when difference or
\ndispute arises between the parties to the arbitration agreement.
\nKeeping the principles in mind, let us now examine as to when
\ndifference or dispute arises between the parties to the arbitration
\nagreement, when the right to apply accrues. As noted herein earlier,
\ndemand notice was served on the appellants by the respondent on
\n16th April 1990 and the application under section 20 of the Act was
\nfiled on 13th November 1990 which is admittedly within the period
\nof limitation as contemplated under Article 137 of the Limitation
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tThe Additional District judge, Roopnagar, Punjab,
\nheld on the question of limitation in filing the application under
\nsection 20 of the Act that the cause of action did not arise when
\nnotice of demand was served but arose when the respondent first
\nacquired either the right of action or the right to require that
\narbitration takes place upon the dispute concerned.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tKeeping the decisions of this court in the cases of S.
\nRajan (supra) and Hari Shankar Singhania (supra) in mind, in our
\nopinion, the view of the Additional District Judge was totally
\nerroneous. In the aforesaid two decisions, it was held that the right
\nto apply accrued for the difference arising between the parties only
\nwhen service of demand notice was effective, which should be the
\ndate for holding that the difference had already arisen between the
\nparties. Such being the settled law, we are of the view that the
\napplication under section 20 of the Act was clearly filed within the
\nperiod of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tFor the reasons aforesaid we do not find any merit in
\nthese appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of with no
\norders as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5197 of 2000 PETITIONER: Punjab State and Ors RESPONDENT: Dina Nath DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/05\/2007 BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Altamas Kabir JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-17T04:10:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-17T04:10:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4203,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-17T04:10:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-17T04:10:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-17T04:10:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007"},"wordCount":4203,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007","name":"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-17T04:10:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-and-ors-vs-dina-nath-on-14-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab State And Ors vs Dina Nath on 14 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}