{"id":104452,"date":"2008-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-04T00:25:12","modified_gmt":"2019-01-03T18:55:12","slug":"state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Altamas Kabir, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  703 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH &amp; ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMAVTAR ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nALTAMAS KABIR &amp; P. SATHASIVAM \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>O R D E R<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3942\/06)<br \/>\n\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent herein appears to have  entered into contracts with different<br \/>\ndepartments of the State of Chhattisgarh for execution of certain works. The<br \/>\ncontracts entered into between the parties provide for reference of disputes<br \/>\nbetween the parties to arbitration.  The said provision is  contained in clause 29<br \/>\nof the Agreement which provides as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tClause 29  Except as otherwise provided in this contract all<br \/>\nquestions and disputes relating to be meaning of the specifications,<br \/>\ndesigns drawings and instructions herein before mentioned as to thing<br \/>\nwhatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract,<br \/>\ndesigns, drawings, specifications, estimate, concerning the works, or<br \/>\nthe execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising  during<br \/>\nthe progress of the work, or after the completion or abandonment<br \/>\nthereof shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer in writing for<br \/>\nhis decision for his decision, within a period of 30 days of such<br \/>\noccurrence.  There upon the Superintending Engineer shall give his<br \/>\nwritten instructions and\/or decisions within a period of 60 days of<br \/>\nsuch request.  This period can be extended by mutual consent of<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tUpon receipt of written instructions or decisions, the parties shall<br \/>\npromptly proceed without delay to comply such instructions or<br \/>\ndecisions.  If the Superintending Engineer fails  to give his<br \/>\ninstructions or decisions in writing within a period of 60 days or<br \/>\nmutually agreed time after being requested and if the parties are<br \/>\naggrieved against the decision of the Superintending Engineer the<br \/>\nparties may within 30 days prefer an appeal to the Chief Engineer<br \/>\nwho shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to<br \/>\noffer evidence in support of his appeal.  The Chief Engineer will give<br \/>\nhis decision within 90 days.  If any party is not satisfied with the<br \/>\ndecision of the Chief Engineer he can refer such disputes for<br \/>\narbitration to an Arbitration Tribunal to be constituted by the State<br \/>\nGovernment.  In case such an Arbitration Tribunal is not constituted<br \/>\nby the State Government, then the aggrieved party shall invoke<br \/>\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  as amended till the date of<br \/>\nsuch reference.<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is to be noted that arbitration proceedings  in the State of Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nwere being conducted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran<br \/>\nAdhiniyam,1983, which provided for the  constitution of an Arbitration<br \/>\nTribunal.  Pursuant  to the Madhya Pradesh State Reorganization Act,2000, the<br \/>\nState of Chhattisgarh was carved out of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 1st<br \/>\nNovember,2000.  In terms of the aforesaid Act the Tribunal constituted under<br \/>\nthe  Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,1983, continued to<br \/>\nfunction to exercise jurisdiction over the State of Chhattisgarh for a period of<br \/>\ntwo years from the appointed day.  According to the above, the Arbitration<br \/>\nTribunal constituted under the  Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran<br \/>\nAdhiniyam, 1983, continued to have jurisdiction in the State of Chhattisgarh<br \/>\nupto 31st October,2002.  The said Tribunal, thereafter, ceased to have<br \/>\njurisdiction in the State of Chhattisgarh  with effect from 1st November,2002.<br \/>\n\tAs it appears from the materials on record, the State Government of<br \/>\nChhattisgarh adopted the  Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran<br \/>\nAdhiniyam,1983, and restyled the same as Chhattisgarh Madhyastham<br \/>\nAdhikaran Adhiniyam,1983, and the Arbitration Tribunal was constituted by<br \/>\nthe State of Chhattisgarh under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham<br \/>\nAdhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 with effect from 1st March,2005.  However, the<br \/>\nsaid Tribunal, so constituted by the State Government, started functioning only<br \/>\nwith effect from 2nd September,2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent herein, along with others, filed six different applications before<br \/>\nthe Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and<br \/>\nConciliation Act,1996, for appointment of arbitrators to adjudicate upon the<br \/>\ndisputes arising between the said parties and the State of Chhattisgarh before<br \/>\nthe Arbitration Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh Act began to function with<br \/>\neffect from 2005.  The said applications were taken up by the High Court and<br \/>\nappropriate orders were passed therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBefore the High Court an objection was taken on behalf of the appellant herein<br \/>\nthat, inasmuch as, the Arbitration Tribunal had already been constituted on 1st<br \/>\nMarch,2005, the subsequent applications under Section 11 of the 1996 Act were<br \/>\nnot maintainable,  and, in any event, should have been transferred  to the<br \/>\nTribunal when it started functioning.  Having regard to the provisions of clause<br \/>\n29, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that pending applications under<br \/>\nSection 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prior to coming into<br \/>\noperation of Arbitration Tribunal were  maintainable under the  1996 Act in<br \/>\nterms of the said clause, and, accordingly, passed  appropriate orders<br \/>\nthereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt may be relevant to point out that out of the six applications allowed by the<br \/>\ncommon order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, only one Special Leave Petition,<br \/>\nnamely, against MCC No. 143 of 2005 has been challenged in this  Court by<br \/>\nway of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3942\/06.  For reasons best known to the<br \/>\nappellant, no further steps were taken with regard to the remaining five<br \/>\napplications and we are informed that arbitration proceedings continued in<br \/>\nrespect of all the six matters, including this matter, and the appellant herein<br \/>\nalso participated in all the proceedings which are almost at the final stage.  We<br \/>\nare also informed that in the present matter the hearing has been concluded and<br \/>\nonly passing of the award is to be effected, but the same has also not been done<br \/>\non account of the order of stay passed by this Court on 9.10.2006.<br \/>\n\tAppearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel submitted that having<br \/>\nregard to the constitution of the Arbitration Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh<br \/>\nAct on 1st March,2005, the applications before the High Court under Section 11<br \/>\nof the 1996 Act were not maintainable. It was also submitted that, in any event,<br \/>\nthe same could not also be saved by the provisions of Section 20(2) of the<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,1983, having regard to<br \/>\nthe fact that,  no arbitration proceeding was pending at the time when the<br \/>\nArbitration Tribunal started functioning in the State of Chhattisgarh with effect<br \/>\nfrom 2nd September,2005. Learned counsel was unable to explain as to how the<br \/>\nappellant did not choose to move further in respect of the other five<br \/>\napplications.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn behalf of the respondent, it was pointed out that despite the fact that the<br \/>\nArbitration Tribunal had been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh with<br \/>\neffect from 1st March,2005, the same did not function prior to 2nd<br \/>\nSeptember,2005, and it is during this period that the application was filed by<br \/>\nthe respondent before the High Court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.<br \/>\nQuestioning the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that no arbitration<br \/>\nproceedings were pending when the Arbitration Tribunal  under the<br \/>\nChhattisgarh Act begun functioning, learned counsel referred to Annexure R-1<br \/>\nof his counter which is a notice dated 19th October,2004, addressed to the<br \/>\nSuperintending Engineer, Office of the Development Commissioner, Bilaspur,<br \/>\nin relation to the Agreement whereunder  payments appear not to have been<br \/>\nmade in respect of the final bill which had been raised.  In the said notice it was<br \/>\nspecifically mentioned that the respondent was invoking his rights under clause<br \/>\n29 of the conditions of the contract.   Learned counsel also pointed out that<br \/>\nsince there was no response from the Superintending  Engineer,  a further letter<br \/>\nwas addressed to the Chief Engineer,  Office of the Development<br \/>\nCommissioner, PMGSY, Raipur, on 6th April,2005 in respect of the same<br \/>\ndispute and a prayer was made by the respondent  for an opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing in person to resolve the dispute.  According to the learned counsel,<br \/>\nthere was no response by the Chief Engineer as well and  the respondent was,<br \/>\ntherefore, constrained to move the application under Section 11 of the<br \/>\nArbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, before the Chhattisgarh High Court on<br \/>\n10th May,2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel also pointed out that the said two opportunities had been<br \/>\ngiven as per the provisions of the 2nd paragraph  of Clause 29 which provided<br \/>\nthat in case of any further dispute remaining after the Chief Engineer had an<br \/>\nopportunity to look into the matter, parties would be at liberty to move the<br \/>\nHigh Court under the provisions of the 1996 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to the learned counsel, the application under Section 11 had been<br \/>\nmade strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and also<br \/>\nhaving regard to the fact that the Arbitration Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh<br \/>\nAct was not available at the time when applications were made.<br \/>\n\tHaving heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we see no reason to<br \/>\ndiffer with the order passed by the High Court since in our view the respondent<br \/>\nhad fulfilled all the conditions even under Clause 29 of the Agreement  before<br \/>\nmoving the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Cociliation<br \/>\nAct,1996.  It is pertinent to note that when the applications were made, the<br \/>\nArbitration Tribunal was not available so that the respondent could move the<br \/>\nsaid Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhat is equally significant is the fact that out of the six applications the State of<br \/>\nChhattisgarh chose to prefer this Special Leave Petition in respect of only one<br \/>\nof six applications and appear to have  accepted the order of the High Court as<br \/>\nfar as the other five matters are concerned.  In our view, the present appeal is<br \/>\nalso not maintainable on that score as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.<br \/>\n\tThe interim order passed in the Special Leave Petition is  vacated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008 Bench: Altamas Kabir, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 703 of 2008 PETITIONER: STATE OF CHHATTISGARH &amp; ORS. RESPONDENT: RAMAVTAR ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/2008 BENCH: ALTAMAS KABIR &amp; P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&hellip;]<\/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-104452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. ... on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. ... on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-03T18:55:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-03T18:55:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1586,\"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\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. ... on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-03T18:55:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. ... on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. ... on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-03T18:55:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-03T18:55:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008"},"wordCount":1586,"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\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008","name":"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. ... on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-03T18:55:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-vs-ramavtar-road-constructions-pvt-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors vs Ramavtar Road Constructions Pvt. &#8230; on 22 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/104452","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=104452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}