{"id":121193,"date":"1999-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999"},"modified":"2015-04-04T22:55:56","modified_gmt":"2015-04-04T17:25:56","slug":"satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999","title":{"rendered":"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.R.Babu<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSATWANT SINGH SODHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t26\/03\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.R.Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      RAJENDRA BABU, J.\t :\n<\/p>\n<p>      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  relation to the construction of High Level  Bridge<br \/>\nover  river Ghaggar on Pehawa Road at Devigarh, an agreement<br \/>\nwas  entered into between the appellant and the respondents.<br \/>\nThe disputes between them arose in respect of certain claims<br \/>\nmade  by  the  appellant  and the  matter  was\treferred  to<br \/>\narbitration  (respondent No.3) pursuant to an order made  by<br \/>\nSub-Judge (1st Class), Patiala.\t The appellant submitted his<br \/>\nclaim  before the Arbitrator and sought for an interim award<br \/>\nin  respect  of\t Item  No.1 with a claim  for  18%  compound<br \/>\ninterest  from\t1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992.\tThe  Arbitrator,  by<br \/>\naward  made  on November 26, 1992, awarded a sum of  Rs.7.45<br \/>\nlacs  in  respect of Item No.1 with interest @ 18%  compound<br \/>\nyearly from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992.  On January 28, 1994, the<br \/>\nArbitrator  made  another award inclusive of Item  No.1\t and<br \/>\nawarded\t a sum of Rs.3,75 lacs and interest @ 12% per  annum<br \/>\nwith  effect  from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992 on the\t amount\t and<br \/>\nalso  in  respect  of other claims.  The appellant  made  an<br \/>\napplication  under  Section 14 of the Arbitration Act,\t1940<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for making the awards<br \/>\ndated  November 26, 1992 and January 28, 1994 as the rule of<br \/>\nthe  court.   The trial court made the award as the rule  of<br \/>\nthe  court holding that the interim award in regard to\tItem<br \/>\nNo.1  should  be made the rule of the court and\t that  award<br \/>\nhaving\tcovered Item No.1 should not be taken note of in the<br \/>\naward  made  on January 28, 1994.  Thereby the\ttrial  court<br \/>\ntook  the view that interim award made on November 26,\t1992<br \/>\nis  liable  to be made the rule of the court with regard  to<br \/>\nItem  No.1  and that Item No.1 of the award made on  January<br \/>\n28,  1994 will merge in the same deciding that aspect of the<br \/>\nmatter\tagainst\t the  respondents  and\t in  favour  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   The award dated January 28, 1994 was ordered to<br \/>\nbe made the rule of the court except for Item No.1 for which<br \/>\ninterim award has already been granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Respondent  Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the<br \/>\nHigh Court which was allowed by holding that the trial court<br \/>\nfell  in  error in making the interim award the rule of\t the<br \/>\ncourt  which  was  superseded  by the final  award  made  on<br \/>\nJanuary 28, 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  these\t appeals  by special  leave,  the  appellant<br \/>\ncontended  that\t on the award being made by  the  Arbitrator<br \/>\ninsofar\t as Item No.1 was concerned it became final but\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  lost sight of the fact that it was not open  to<br \/>\nthe Arbitrator to revise the Award made by him earlier as he<br \/>\nhad  become functus officio.  It is submitted that the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  erred in holding that the award made on November\t 26,<br \/>\n1992 was not pronounced though it was made and signed by the<br \/>\nArbitrator  and,  therefore,  was   open  to  be  corrected.<br \/>\nAssailing  this\t conclusion,  it   was\tcontended  that\t the<br \/>\nArbitrator has to make and sign the award and it is valid in<br \/>\nlaw  if\t he  does so and merely because no notice  has\tbeen<br \/>\ngiven  to  the parties it cannot be held to be\tinvalid\t and<br \/>\nnotice\tto the parties could be postponed.  The\t requirement<br \/>\nof making and signing the award simultaneously is sufficient<br \/>\nto  result in binding award.  It was next contended that the<br \/>\nview  of  the  High  Court   that  the\tArbitrator   himself<br \/>\nsuperseded  the award made on November 26, 1992 by  treating<br \/>\nit to be an interim award was erroneous and it was submitted<br \/>\nthat  the interim award having been made and being final  in<br \/>\ncharacter  it  was not open for modification  or  alteration<br \/>\nexcept in terms as provided in Section 13(d) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  trial court adverted to the facts leading to\t the<br \/>\naward  being  made on Item No.1.  The appellant claimed\t for<br \/>\ninterim\t award in respect of Item No.1 for Rs.\t 10,05,422\/-<br \/>\nwith  compound\tinterest @ 18% with effect from 1.2.1981  to<br \/>\n15.3.1992.  The Arbitrator made an award on Item No.1 to the<br \/>\ntune  of Rs.7.45 lacs with interest @ 18% compound per annum<br \/>\nfrom  1.2.1981\tto  15.3.1992 after examining the  oral\t and<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence and after considering the arguments and<br \/>\ncounter\t arguments.  It is necessary to notice the manner in<br \/>\nwhich the Arbitrator dealt with this aspect of the matter in<br \/>\nthe award made on January 28, 1994.  At page 3 of the award,<br \/>\nthe Arbitrator has mentioned as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.2, PWD<br \/>\nB&amp;R  Branch, Patiala informed during the hearing on December<br \/>\n2,  1992  that\tthe  Honble High Court heard  the  case\t on<br \/>\nNovember  23, 1992 and subsequently on December 2, 1992\t and<br \/>\nstayed\tthe  operation of the arbitration  proceedings.\t  In<br \/>\nview  of the order of the learned court dated September\t 23,<br \/>\n1992,  the  proceedings\t were  taken  up  and  both  parties<br \/>\nappeared on various dates.  After hearing the parties and as<br \/>\nper the directions regarding the finalisation of the interim<br \/>\naward  as the case in respect of Item No.1 was heard and was<br \/>\nconsidered to announce interim award but in view of the stay<br \/>\ngranted\t on  December  2,  1992 which was  informed  by\t the<br \/>\nExecutive  Engineer,  Provincial Division No.2,\t Patiala  on<br \/>\nDecember  2,  1992 during the hearing the award as such\t was<br \/>\nnot  announced,\t which has been incorporated in the  present<br \/>\naward as given hereinbelow.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  question  whether interim award is final  to\t the<br \/>\nextent\tit  goes  or  has effect till  the  final  award  is<br \/>\ndelivered  will\t depend upon the form of the award.  If\t the<br \/>\ninterim award is intended to have effect only so long as the<br \/>\nfinal  award is not delivered it will have the force of\t the<br \/>\ninterim\t award\tand it will cease to have effect  after\t the<br \/>\nfinal  award  is made.\tIf, on the other hand,\tthe  interim<br \/>\naward  is  intended to finally determine the rights  of\t the<br \/>\nparties\t it will have the force of a complete award and will<br \/>\nhave  effect  even after the final award is delivered.\t The<br \/>\nterms  of the award dated November 26, 1992 do not  indicate<br \/>\nthat the same is of interim nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Section 14 of the provides that when the arbitrator or<br \/>\numpire\thas made his award, he shall sign it and shall\tgive<br \/>\nnotice\tin writing to the parties of the making and  signing<br \/>\nthereof\t and  of the amount of fees and charges\t payable  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  the arbitration and award.\t In the language  of<br \/>\nthe Section, an award will be complete as soon as it is made<br \/>\nand  signed.  Thus mere writing of an award would not amount<br \/>\nto  making  of\tan award.  There can be no finality  in\t the<br \/>\naward  except when it is signed because signing of the award<br \/>\ngives  legal effect to it and to give validity to an  award.<br \/>\nIt  is\tnot  necessary that it should also be  delivered  or<br \/>\npronounced  or\tfiled in the court.  Making and delivery  of<br \/>\nthe award are different stages of an arbitration proceeding.<br \/>\nAn  award is made when it is authenticated by the person who<br \/>\nmakes  it.   The word made suggests that the mind  of  the<br \/>\nArbitrator  as being declared and it is validly deemed to be<br \/>\npronounced  as soon as the Arbitrator has signed it and once<br \/>\nan award has been given by the Arbitrator he becomes functus<br \/>\nofficio.   If  this  is\t the position  in  law,\t it  becomes<br \/>\ndifficult  to  support the view taken by the High  Court  in<br \/>\nstating\t that the interim award was not pronounced though it<br \/>\nwas  made and signed by the Arbitrator.\t If he had made\t the<br \/>\naward  the question of superseding the same could not arise.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the\t view of the High Court appears to us to  be<br \/>\nfallacious.   On  this aspect of the matter we may refer  to<br \/>\nsome  of  the  decisions on the aspect as to when  an  award<br \/>\nbecomes final.\tIn Janardhan Prasad vs.\t Chandrashekhar, AIR<br \/>\n1951  Nagpur 198, after examining the scope of Section 14 of<br \/>\nthe Act, it was held as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>      the  award  becomes valid and final so far as  the<br \/>\narbitrators  or\t umpire are concerned the moment it is\tmade<br \/>\nand  signed  by\t them.\tThe provision for giving  notice  in<br \/>\nwriting to the parties of the making and signing thereof and<br \/>\nof  the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the<br \/>\narbitration  and the award is for the purpose of  limitation<br \/>\nunder  Art.   178  of the Limitation Act,  entitling  either<br \/>\nparty  to apply to the Court for the filing in Court of\t the<br \/>\naward.\n<\/p>\n<p>      No  time is fixed for the giving of such notice by the<br \/>\nArbitrator and it has been held in several cases that it may<br \/>\nbe  done within reasonable time either by the Arbitrator  or<br \/>\nby  his\t agent.\t A notice may be given to one party and\t may<br \/>\nnot  be given to another party for a much longer period.  It<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  said that an award becomes final so far  as\t the<br \/>\nfirst  party  is  concerned  and no  as\t against  the  other<br \/>\nentitling  the\tArbitrators  to scrap the award and  make  a<br \/>\nfresh one.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere is thus a fundamental difference between<br \/>\nthe  making,  signing and delivery of a judgment and  making<br \/>\nand  signing  and giving notice of an award.  In the  former<br \/>\ncase  all  three must be simultaneous acts and parts of\t the<br \/>\nsame  transaction.  In the latter case the first two may  be<br \/>\nsimultaneous and the notice of the award can be postponed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      That  award does not become invalid because notice  of<br \/>\nthe  making  of\t it has not been given.\t  An  Arbitrator  is<br \/>\nentitled  to  file  an\taward in  Court\t under\tSection\t 14,<br \/>\nsub-s.(2).  If he does so, the Court is bound to give notice<br \/>\nto the parties of the filing of the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The circumstances in which these observations are made<br \/>\nby the court are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Arbitrators\thad  made  and signed  an  award  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 11, 1944 which was registered on January 13,  1944.<br \/>\nThereafter  the\t Arbitrators made a second award on  January<br \/>\n26,  1944.  It was contended that as they did not  pronounce<br \/>\nthe  award by issuing a notice of having signed it, they had<br \/>\nnot  become  functus officio and could, therefore, make\t and<br \/>\ndeliver\t the  second  award  dated January  26,\t 1944.\t The<br \/>\nlearned\t Judges\t of the High Court refused to hold that\t the<br \/>\nfirst  award  was not final and could be superseded  by\t the<br \/>\nsecond\taward because no notice was given before January 26,<br \/>\n1944.\tThis  view was followed by the Andhra  Pradesh\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in  Badarla  Ramakrishnamma &amp; Ors.   vs.\t  Vattikonda<br \/>\nLakshmibayamma\t&amp; Ors., AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 503, at pare\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Again in Ram Bharosey vs.\tPeary Lal, AIR 1957 All.265,<br \/>\nit was observed as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is true that in the present case the\tArbitrators<br \/>\ndid  not  give notice to the parties of the making  and\t the<br \/>\nsigning\t of the award.\tBut the arbitrators after making and<br \/>\nthe  signing the award filed it in the court.  The  validity<br \/>\nof  the\t award does not depend upon the notice of  the\tsame<br \/>\nbeing  given  to the parties.  When an award is\t duly  make,<br \/>\nsigned and filed in Court it is a valid document.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  position  was  reiterated\tin  Asad-ul-lah\t vs.<br \/>\nMuhammad  Nur,\tILR 27 All.  459(A) and it was held  that  :<br \/>\nfor  the  making  of  an  award\t  it  is  enough  that\tthe<br \/>\nArbitrators act together and finally make up their minds and<br \/>\nexpress\t their\tdecision in writing.  This writing  must  be<br \/>\nauthenticated  by their signatures.  The award is thus\tmade<br \/>\nand  signed  and  is  complete\tand  final  so\tfar  as\t the<br \/>\nArbitrators are concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1791303\/\">Rikhabdas vs.  Ballabhdas &amp; Ors.,<\/a>\t1962<br \/>\n(1)  SCR  Supp.\t  475, held that once an award is  made\t and<br \/>\nsigned\tby  the\t Arbitrator the Arbitrator  becomes  functus<br \/>\nofficio.   <a href=\"\/doc\/843258\/\">In  Juggilal Kamlapat vs.  General Fibre  Dealers<br \/>\nLtd.,<\/a>  1962  (2)  SCR Supp.  101, this Court  held  that  an<br \/>\nArbitrator  having signed his award becomes functus  officio<br \/>\nbut  that did not mean that in no circumstances could  there<br \/>\nby  further  arbitration proceedings where an award was\t set<br \/>\naside  or that the same Arbitrator could never have anything<br \/>\nto do with the award with respect to the same dispute.\tThus<br \/>\nin  the\t present case, it was not open to the Arbitrator  to<br \/>\nre-determine  the  claim and make an award.  Therefore,\t the<br \/>\nview  taken  by the trial court that the earlier award\tmade<br \/>\nand   written\tthough\tsigned\t was  not   pronounced\t but<br \/>\nnevertheless  had  become  complete  and  final,  therefore,<br \/>\nshould\tbe  made the rule of the court appears to us  to  be<br \/>\ncorrect\t with  regard to Item No.1 inasmuch as the claim  in<br \/>\nrelation to Item No.1 could not have been adjudicated by the<br \/>\nArbitrator  again and it has been rightly excluded from\t the<br \/>\nsecond\taward  made by the Arbitrator on January  28,  1994.<br \/>\nThus  the view taken by the trial court on this aspect\talso<br \/>\nappears to us to be correct.  Therefore, the trial court has<br \/>\nrightly\t ordered the award dated January 28, 1994 to be\t the<br \/>\nrule  of  the court except for Item No.1 and in\t respect  of<br \/>\nwhich  the  award dated November 26, 1992 was ordered to  be<br \/>\nthe rule of the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the circumstances aforementioned, we have no option<br \/>\nbut  to reverse the view taken by the High Court and restore<br \/>\nthat  of  the  trial  court.\tThe  appeals  stand  allowed<br \/>\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 Bench: S.R.Babu PETITIONER: SATWANT SINGH SODHI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/1999 BENCH: S.R.Babu JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Leave granted. In relation to the construction of High Level Bridge over river Ghaggar [&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-121193","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>Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 - 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\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-04T17:25:56+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-04T17:25:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2156,\"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\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\",\"name\":\"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-04T17:25:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 - 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\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-04T17:25:56+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999","datePublished":"1999-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-04T17:25:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999"},"wordCount":2156,"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\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999","name":"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-04T17:25:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satwant-singh-sodhi-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-26-march-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1999"}]},{"@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\/121193","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=121193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}