{"id":123263,"date":"2008-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-13T18:31:07","modified_gmt":"2018-05-13T13:01:07","slug":"skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: A.K. Mathur, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
                                                                     1\n\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n           CIVIL APPEAL No.             OF 2008\n\n       (Arising out of SLP(C) No7722 of 2007)\n\n\n\n\nSkyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.          .Appellants\n\n                           Vs.\n\nState of U.P. & ors.                    ...Respondents\n\n\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   The appellants herein filed a writ petition<\/p>\n
      before the Allahabad High Court for quashing<\/p>\n
      an order dated 21.6.2006 issued             on behalf<\/p>\n
      of   the    New   Okhla    Industrial    Development<\/p>\n
      Authority     (hereinafter       referred     to    as<\/p>\n
      `NOIDA’)cancelling        the   allotment    of    Plot
\n                                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
     no.A-28 in Sector 62 made in favour of the<\/p>\n
     appellant.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Admittedly,           the         appellant          made      an<\/p>\n
     application for allotment of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
     plot measuring 8000 square meters pursuant<\/p>\n
     to an advertisement published on behalf of<\/p>\n
     the    NOIDA     inviting         such        applications    and<\/p>\n
     made    an    initial       deposit       of    Rs.13,20,000\/-<\/p>\n
     while        submitting           the      application.        On<\/p>\n
     17.4.2003 an order of allotment was issued<\/p>\n
     in     favour    of    the        appellant       whereby     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner was         required          to    deposit   25   per<\/p>\n
     cent of the premium amount in cash or by a<\/p>\n
     bank draft in favour of NOIDA within 60 days<\/p>\n
     of such allotment. It was                         categorically<\/p>\n
     stipulated that if the said amount was not<\/p>\n
     deposited       within       the        time    specified     the<\/p>\n
     depositor’s earnest money would be forfeited<\/p>\n
     and no extension of time would be granted<\/p>\n
     for    deposit    of    the       said    amount     under    any<\/p>\n
     circumstances.              The     balance       75%    of   the<\/p>\n
     premium amount was required to be deposited
\n                                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
     by   the      allottee      in     10       equal       half-yearly<\/p>\n
     instalments along with interest at the rate<\/p>\n
     of      14%           per        annum            on    outstanding<\/p>\n
     premium.       Here    also,       it       was     categorically<\/p>\n
     stipulated that no extension for payment of<\/p>\n
     instalments       would      be       granted          and     if    the<\/p>\n
     allottee       failed       to        pay    the        instalments<\/p>\n
     within     due    dates      the        allotment            would    be<\/p>\n
     cancelled and the amount equivalent to 25%<\/p>\n
     of the premium would be forfeited in favour<\/p>\n
     of the NOIDA. In exceptional circumstances,<\/p>\n
     however,       the    Chief       Executive             Officer      of<\/p>\n
     NOIDA    was     vested      with        the      discretion          to<\/p>\n
     extend the time for making deposits, which<\/p>\n
     would be subject to payment of interest @<\/p>\n
     17% per annum compounded every half yearly<\/p>\n
     on the defaulted            amount          for    the    defaulted<\/p>\n
     period.\n<\/p>\n
4.   As has been noticed by the High Court in its<\/p>\n
     judgment       impugned          in     this           appeal,       the<\/p>\n
     appellants did not deposit any amount for a<\/p>\n
     period of two and a half years after receipt
\n                                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
     of the allotment letter. The Authority wrote<\/p>\n
     to the appellant on 3.5.2005 requesting the<\/p>\n
     appellant to produce receipts of deposits,<\/p>\n
     if any, made in pursuance of the allotment<\/p>\n
     letter.       Three       months       after        receiving     the<\/p>\n
     said    letter       the     appellant          started       making<\/p>\n
     deposits in September 2005 and on 16.12.2005<\/p>\n
     wrote to the NOIDA asking for details with<\/p>\n
     regard to the deposit of stamp duty, etc.<\/p>\n
     for execution of the lease deed pursuant to<\/p>\n
     the allotment made                in    its     favour.      Despite<\/p>\n
     the    said     letter,      the        NOIDA       cancelled     the<\/p>\n
     allotment made in favour of the appellants<\/p>\n
     by its order dated 21.6.2006 on the ground<\/p>\n
     that the appellant had failed to make the<\/p>\n
     deposits as per clause 2(iv) of the Terms<\/p>\n
     and    Conditions          for        allotment.       As     stated<\/p>\n
     hereinbefore,         the    writ        petition       was   filed<\/p>\n
     challenging such cancellation.<\/p>\n
5.   On     considering          the        submissions        made    on<\/p>\n
     behalf     of       the     parties           the     High     Court<\/p>\n
     rejected      the     plea       of     the    appellants        that
\n                                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
although       the        appellants         had      failed     to<\/p>\n
deposit the premium amount in keeping with<\/p>\n
the terms and conditions of the allotment,<\/p>\n
the    said    amount          subsequently        deposited     by<\/p>\n
the appellants had been duly accepted by the<\/p>\n
NOIDA       which        had    accordingly        waived      such<\/p>\n
terms and conditions and the allotment made<\/p>\n
in    the    appellant’s          favour      could    not     have<\/p>\n
been cancelled on the ground that the same<\/p>\n
had    not    been       deposited      in    time.     The    High<\/p>\n
Court       also    rejected       the       other    submission<\/p>\n
made on behalf of the appellants that the<\/p>\n
NOIDA had acted wrongly in re-allotting the<\/p>\n
plot in question to the Respondent No.5 at a<\/p>\n
much cheaper rate than was demanded from the<\/p>\n
appellants. The High Court held that having<\/p>\n
failed to make the deposits within the time<\/p>\n
stipulated          in     the    allotment          letter     the<\/p>\n
voluntary deposits subsequently made two and<\/p>\n
half    years        after        the     issuance       of     the<\/p>\n
allotment      letter,          without      the     approval    of<\/p>\n
the NOIDA, could not be accepted as valid
\n                                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
     deposit        and   the     appellants           were        not,<\/p>\n
     therefore, entitled to any relief. Certain<\/p>\n
     judgments       of   this    Court       which     have       been<\/p>\n
     relied upon before us by the appellants had<\/p>\n
     also been considered by the High Court which<\/p>\n
     came to the conclusion that the same were<\/p>\n
     not      applicable         to       the         facts         and<\/p>\n
     circumstances of the instant case. The High<\/p>\n
     Court, therefore, held the writ petition to<\/p>\n
     be completely misconceived and dismissed the<\/p>\n
     same.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The same arguments           as    was    advanced       before<\/p>\n
     the     High    Court     have     also     been     advanced<\/p>\n
     before     us    with     special        emphasis    on        the<\/p>\n
     letter dated 15.5.2003 written on behalf of<\/p>\n
     the appellant to the NOIDA with reference to<\/p>\n
     the allotment letter of 17.4.2003. Referring<\/p>\n
     to the said letter, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
     appellant        submitted        that     it      had        been<\/p>\n
     mentioned therein that a modified allotment<\/p>\n
     letter    would      be   issued     to    the     appellants<\/p>\n
     along    with    a   statement      of     account       of    the
\n                                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
     balance       amount           payable          on        account       of<\/p>\n
     typographical         discrepancy              in    the       allotment<\/p>\n
     letter, but that neither had such modified<\/p>\n
     letter been given to the appellant nor had<\/p>\n
     any   statement           of    account         been        issued       as<\/p>\n
     promised.            It        was     also         sought        to     be<\/p>\n
     highlighted that in the letter it had been<\/p>\n
     specifically mentioned that the officials of<\/p>\n
     NOIDA had refused to accept the payment on<\/p>\n
     account       of    some        internal            inquiry       and\/or<\/p>\n
     procedural changes being effected by NOIDA.<\/p>\n
7.   It    was     urged       that         since         no     reply       was<\/p>\n
     received      to     the        said       letter         no     further<\/p>\n
     payments were made in terms of the allotment<\/p>\n
     letter      till     the        appellants            received          the<\/p>\n
     letter      written       on     behalf        of     the       NOIDA    on<\/p>\n
     3.5.2005      asking       the       appellants            to    produce<\/p>\n
     proof    of       deposit       of     the     allotment          amount<\/p>\n
     which       was     required          to       be     deposited          by<\/p>\n
     16.2.03.      It    was        urged    that         once       the    said<\/p>\n
     letter was received, deposits were made on<\/p>\n
     6.12.2005          making        up        a        total       sum      of
\n                                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
     Rs.3,80,20,000\/-          after      giving        credit       for<\/p>\n
     deposit      of         the        initial        amount         of<\/p>\n
     Rs.13,20,000\/-.               It     was     reiterated          by<\/p>\n
     counsel that having accepted the aforesaid<\/p>\n
     deposits,       the      NOIDA       was     estopped          from<\/p>\n
     cancelling the allotment by its order dated<\/p>\n
     21.6.2006.\n<\/p>\n
8.   In support of his submission learned senior<\/p>\n
     counsel    referred       to       several     decisions         of<\/p>\n
     this    Court     regarding        the     manner      in     which<\/p>\n
     public authorities should conduct themselves<\/p>\n
     while      extending           benefits           to     private<\/p>\n
     individuals        by     way        of      contracts          and<\/p>\n
     agreements.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Learned     counsel       firstly         referred       to     the<\/p>\n
     decision    of    this    Court       in    R.K.       Saxena    v.<\/p>\n
     Delhi    Development          Authority       (AIR<\/a>      2002     SC<\/p>\n
     2340)    where     a    similar      set     of    facts       were<\/p>\n
     under consideration. In the said case, after<\/p>\n
     making the initial deposit of 25 per cent of<\/p>\n
     the auctioned price, the auction purchaser<\/p>\n
     prayed for extension of time to deposit the
\n                                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
balance of 75 per cent which was required to<\/p>\n
be   paid     within     60   days     from       the   date     of<\/p>\n
issuance of the demand letter. In the said<\/p>\n
case    also    the     Chairman,      Delhi       Development<\/p>\n
Authority,       was    vested       with     discretion         to<\/p>\n
extend the time for such payments up to a<\/p>\n
maximum     period       of    180     days,       subject       to<\/p>\n
payment of interest on the balance amount @<\/p>\n
18 per cent per annum.                 The demand letter<\/p>\n
for payment of the said amount was issued on<\/p>\n
3.1.1996       but     only    a     part         thereof       was<\/p>\n
deposited       on    19.2.1996      with     a    prayer       for<\/p>\n
further       extension       to     make         the    balance<\/p>\n
payment. Such prayer was granted and further<\/p>\n
time    was     granted       for    the      said      purpose.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to said extensions certain amounts<\/p>\n
were deposited          towards      the    balance       75    per<\/p>\n
cent,     but        ultimately      when         on    2.9.1996<\/p>\n
further extension was sought for there was<\/p>\n
no reply to the letter though various sums<\/p>\n
deposited       thereafter      were       accepted       by    the<\/p>\n
Authority        despite       the     fact        that        such
\n                                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
deposits      were     made     after         the    stipulated<\/p>\n
time. It was also brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
the Court that the entire balance amount had<\/p>\n
since been paid for the plot in question.<\/p>\n
Since, despite having accepted the delayed<\/p>\n
payment the plot was not delivered to the<\/p>\n
appellant, legal notices were issued on its<\/p>\n
behalf and subsequent thereto the allotment<\/p>\n
was    cancelled       and    the     earnest        money     was<\/p>\n
forfeited.         The writ petition filed in the<\/p>\n
High     Court     against      said      cancellation         of<\/p>\n
allotment was dismissed on 29.2.2000 by the<\/p>\n
High Court which held that after the expiry<\/p>\n
of the period          stipulated        in    the    agreement<\/p>\n
the allottee could            not    have      deposited       the<\/p>\n
balance      amount      unilaterally           without        any<\/p>\n
demand      being      issued       to    him        after     the<\/p>\n
extended dates and no relief could be given<\/p>\n
to the allottee. Learned counsel pointed out<\/p>\n
that   when      the   said    matter      was       carried   to<\/p>\n
this Court, this Court held that the order<\/p>\n
of    the   High    Court     could      not    be    sustained
\n                                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      particularly when both the delayed payments<\/p>\n
      and     the     interest         amount     thereupon       were<\/p>\n
      accepted      by   the     respondent-authority.            This<\/p>\n
      Court     observed          that     the     moment       those<\/p>\n
      payments      were        accepted    there       was    deemed<\/p>\n
      extension of time and that it was only one<\/p>\n
      and half years after the legal notices had<\/p>\n
      been     sent      to      the      Authority      that      the<\/p>\n
      allotment       order      was    cancelled.      This    Court<\/p>\n
      held in the facts of that case that after<\/p>\n
      accepting          the       delayed         payment         the<\/p>\n
      respondent-authority                could         not       have<\/p>\n
      cancelled the allotment.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Reliance was also placed on the decision of<\/p>\n
      this Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Limited<\/p>\n
      v. U.T. Chandigarh and<\/a> another [(2004) 2 SCC<\/p>\n
      130] where the concept of disproportionate<\/p>\n
      action was applied in a similar case where<\/p>\n
      the lessee defaulted\/delayed in payment of<\/p>\n
      instalments of premium, interest thereon and<\/p>\n
      ground     rent      in     terms    of     the    letter     of<\/p>\n
      allotment but it was found that the same had
\n                                                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
been occasioned            due    to    a    situation      beyond<\/p>\n
the control of the lessee and not on account<\/p>\n
of any wilful or dishonest intention on the<\/p>\n
part    of    the       lessee.    Keeping         in    mind    the<\/p>\n
principles         of    proportionality,            this    Court<\/p>\n
not    only      held     that     the       lessee\/appellants<\/p>\n
therein had not only shown their bona fides<\/p>\n
in making payments before the High Court but<\/p>\n
they    had      also    shown     their         willingness      to<\/p>\n
make payment on            the     difference           amount   and<\/p>\n
pursuant to the orders passed by this Court<\/p>\n
had not only paid the entire amount due, but<\/p>\n
had also paid the ground rent upto 1998-99<\/p>\n
and    10    per    cent    penalty         on    the    forfeited<\/p>\n
amount      of     the   entire        consideration        money.<\/p>\n
While       allowing       the     appeals,         this     Court<\/p>\n
observed that the land in question for all<\/p>\n
intents and purposes had been transferred in<\/p>\n
favour of the lessee who was merely required<\/p>\n
to pay the balance amount of 75 per cent of<\/p>\n
the     consideration            amount      in     instalments.<\/p>\n
While also deprecating                 the       conduct    of   the
\n                                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
lessees in not making an endeavor to pay the<\/p>\n
instalments within a reasonable period, this<\/p>\n
Court    in     consonance      with      the    doctrine          of<\/p>\n
proportionality          observed        that        after        the<\/p>\n
letter     of      allotment      had     been        issued       in<\/p>\n
favour of the lessee\/appellant it had been<\/p>\n
put in possession of the property and had<\/p>\n
raised a six-storied              building       on    the     said<\/p>\n
land. It was also observed that it had paid<\/p>\n
a   part      of   the    first     instalment          and       had<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the proceeding before<\/p>\n
the High Court           paid   a   substantial          amount,<\/p>\n
together      with    interest      @    12     per    cent       per<\/p>\n
annum, as enhanced from time to time. This<\/p>\n
Court was, therefore, of the view that the<\/p>\n
resumption of the plot by the Estate Officer<\/p>\n
was too drastic and such power of resumption<\/p>\n
and forfeiture           should be exercised only as<\/p>\n
a   last      resort.     Of    course,         it     was     also<\/p>\n
indicated that such an observation did not<\/p>\n
mean     that      the    power     of     resumption             and<\/p>\n
forfeiture should          never     be    resorted          to    if
\n                                                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
      the intention of the allottee was dishonest<\/p>\n
      or with ill-motive or the payments in terms<\/p>\n
      of the allotment were made with a dishonest<\/p>\n
      view or dishonest motive.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Learned counsel submitted that having regard<\/p>\n
      to the aforesaid decision it must also be<\/p>\n
      held in this case that cancellation of the<\/p>\n
      allotment       six       months     after       the     entire<\/p>\n
      balance amount had been deposited could not<\/p>\n
      be sustained and the High Court had erred in<\/p>\n
      dismissing the            writ   petition    filed       by   the<\/p>\n
      appellant           company          challenging              the<\/p>\n
      cancellation of            the   allotment       made    in   its<\/p>\n
      favour.\n<\/p>\n
12.   The learned counsel appearing both for the<\/p>\n
      State     of    U.P.       and     NOIDA    supported         the<\/p>\n
      decision       of   the     High   Court     and    submitted<\/p>\n
      that    since       the     appellant      had     failed      to<\/p>\n
      deposit any amount, other than the initial<\/p>\n
      deposit of Rs.13,20,000\/-, within the time<\/p>\n
      stipulated in         the    allotment      order       and   had<\/p>\n
      unilaterally deposited the balance amount 2=
\n                                                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
      years    after      the    allotment        order       was    made<\/p>\n
      and,    that      too,     after     a    letter        had     been<\/p>\n
      addressed to the appellant asking for proof<\/p>\n
      of deposit of the said amounts, it was not<\/p>\n
      entitled to any relief.                   It was urged on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the NOIDA that the deposits said<\/p>\n
      to   have    been    made    by     the     appellant         after<\/p>\n
      receipt of the said letter, had been made<\/p>\n
      unilaterally and           had     not    been    accepted       by<\/p>\n
      the NOIDA.        Accordingly, the appellant could<\/p>\n
      not derive any            benefit    from      the     decisions<\/p>\n
      cited on its behalf since in all the said<\/p>\n
      cases,      the    deposits,        though       made     out     of<\/p>\n
      time, had subsequently been accepted by the<\/p>\n
      concerned authority.\n<\/p>\n
13.   It was also submitted that since third party<\/p>\n
      interests had        intervened          and     the    plot    had<\/p>\n
      since    been       allotted        in      favour       of     the<\/p>\n
      respondent NO.5,           the     relief      sought     for    by<\/p>\n
      the appellant in the writ petition could not<\/p>\n
      be granted.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
14.   Similar submissions were made on behalf of<\/p>\n
      the    respondent     No.5,     in    whose    favour       the<\/p>\n
      plot in question had been allotted after the<\/p>\n
      allotment     in    favour    of     the    appellant       was<\/p>\n
      cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
15.   It was submitted that the reason sought to<\/p>\n
      be given on behalf of the appellant for non<\/p>\n
      payment of the premium amount was extremely<\/p>\n
      dubious and had been rejected by the NOIDA<\/p>\n
      in its discretion.           The     decisions      cited    on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the appellant could not be applied<\/p>\n
      to    the   facts   of   this      case,    since    in     the<\/p>\n
      present case, the deposits subsequently made<\/p>\n
      by the appellant had not been accepted by<\/p>\n
      the NOIDA.     It was lastly urged that, in any<\/p>\n
      event, no relief could be granted in favour<\/p>\n
      of the appellant, since no prayer had been<\/p>\n
      made in the writ petition for cancellation<\/p>\n
      of    the   allotment     made       in    favour    of     the<\/p>\n
      respondent No.5.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
16.   Having    considered     the   submissions      made   on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the respective parties, we are not<\/p>\n
      inclined to interfere with the order of the<\/p>\n
      High Court in the present appeal.<\/p>\n
17.    There is no dispute that the appellant did<\/p>\n
      not     make   any     deposits,     other    than     the<\/p>\n
      initial deposit of Rs.13,20,000\/-, in terms<\/p>\n
      of the allotment order.             There is also no<\/p>\n
      dispute that the deposits ultimately made 2=<\/p>\n
      years    after   the    allotment    order     had   been<\/p>\n
      passed, had been made unilaterally and only<\/p>\n
      after a communication was received from the<\/p>\n
      NOIDA asking for proof of deposits made and,<\/p>\n
      that too, three months after receipt of such<\/p>\n
      letter.\n<\/p>\n
18.   We are inclined        to   accept   the     submissions<\/p>\n
      made on behalf of the respondents that the<\/p>\n
      reason given for not making the deposits, as<\/p>\n
      per     the    allotment    order,     is     not    very<\/p>\n
      convincing.      We are also inclined to accept<\/p>\n
      the other submissions made on behalf of the
\n                                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
       respondents      that       since         the     deposits<\/p>\n
       subsequently made by the appellant had not<\/p>\n
       been accepted by the NOIDA, the ratio of the<\/p>\n
       decisions cited on behalf of the appellant<\/p>\n
       would not apply to the facts of this case,<\/p>\n
       particularly,     when    third      party       interests<\/p>\n
       have intervened and a fresh allotment order<\/p>\n
       had been made in favour of the respondent<\/p>\n
       No.5 and no prayer has been made in the writ<\/p>\n
       petition for setting aside such allotment.<\/p>\n
 19.   We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss<\/p>\n
       the   appeal,    but    without     any    order    as   to<\/p>\n
       costs.   The    appellant    will    be     entitled     to<\/p>\n
       withdraw the      deposits made by it in favour<\/p>\n
       of the respondents towards           the        balance of<\/p>\n
       the premium amount.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (A.K. MATHUR)<\/p>\n
                                    ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (ALTAMAS KABIR)
\nNew Delhi,
\n                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
Dated : July 9, 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 Author: A Kabir Bench: A.K. Mathur, Altamas Kabir 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No7722 of 2007) Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .Appellants Vs. […]<\/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-123263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSkyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 - 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\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-13T13:01:07+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-13T13:01:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2584,\"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\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-13T13:01:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 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":"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 - 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\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-13T13:01:07+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-13T13:01:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008"},"wordCount":2584,"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\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008","name":"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-13T13:01:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skyline-contractors-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Skyline Contractors Pvt.Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 9 July, 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\/123263","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=123263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}