{"id":125674,"date":"1964-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964"},"modified":"2015-01-18T21:36:38","modified_gmt":"2015-01-18T16:06:38","slug":"kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964","title":{"rendered":"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1488, \t\t 1965 SCR (2) 276<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKAYS CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/11\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1488\t\t  1965 SCR  (2) 276\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1966 SC 616\t (5)\n R\t    1972 SC 451\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sub-ss. (1) and (2)  of\ns.  6-H--Back wages of workmen--Exact amount not  calculated\nbut  amendable\tto  arithmetical  calculation--Such   amount\nwhether\t 'money due' under first clause or 'benefit  capable\nof being computed in terms of money' under second clause.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tcompany\t bad to pay under an  award  of\t the\nLabour Tribunal the back wages of some workmen.\t The  Labour\nCommissioner  issued  a recovery certificate in\t respect  of\npart of these wages to the Collector under s. 6-H (1) of the\nU.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1927, and stated that for\t the\nrest  of the amount due he would issue\tanother\t certificate\nlater  when  the  exact amount had  been  worked  out.\t The\nappellant company challenged the certificate before the High\nCourt, contending that it was not in respect of 'money\tdue'\nfor  which proceedings under sub.s. (1) of s. 6-H  could  be\ntaken, but was a 'benefit' to be computed in terms of  money\nfor  which the appropriate proceedings could be\t only  under\nsub-s.\t(2)  of that section.  A single Judge  of  the\tHigh\nCourt accepted the contention of the appellant company,\t but\nhis  judgment was reversed by a Division Bench of  the\tHigh\nCourt.\tThe company appealed to the Supreme Court by special\nleave.\nHELD  : The Division Bench had correctly confined  the\tterm\n'benefits'  under  the second clause to benefits  like\trent\nfree  quarters, free electricity etc. which were not  things\nwhich a man earned through his labour.\tIn the present\tcase\nwhat  was  required was not computation\t of  money-value  of\n'benefits'  but\t only an arithmetical calculation  of  total\nmoney wages over a certain period.  The elaborate  procedure\nunder sub-s. (2) of S. 6-H was not mean for cases where only\narithmetical calculation was required.\tThe appeal therefore\ncould not succeed. [281 C-G]\nM.S.N.S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli v. Rajaram and<\/a>  another,\n[1960]\t1 L.L.J. 336, Seshmusa Sugar Works Ltd. v. State  of\nBihar,\tA.I.R. 1955 Patna 49, S. S. Shetty v.  Bharat  Nidhi\nLtd.,<\/a>  [1958]  S.C.R.  442, Kasturi & Sons (P)\tLtd.  v.  N.\nSalivatesaram,<\/a> [1959] S.C.R. 1, Punjab National Bank Ltd. v.\nKharbunda,  [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 977 and  Shri\t Amarsinghji\nMills Ltd. Nagarashua (M.P.), [1961] 1 L.L.J. 581,  referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1108\t and
\n1109 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order,  dated
\nMarch,\t15,  1962  of the Allahabad High  Court\t in  Special
\nAppeal\tNo. 574 of 1960 and Supreme Court Appeal No.  53  of
\n1962 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
Sir  Iqbal Ahmad, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R.  Chaudhuri
\nfor the appellant (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
277<\/span><\/p>\n
C.   B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondents Nos.  1  to
\n4 (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah,  J. These are two appeals by special leave  in
\nwhich  Kays  Construction  Co. (P) Ltd.\t is  the  appellant.
\nCivil  Appeal No. 1108 of 1963 is against a judgment of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court, dated March 15, 1962 and Civil  Appeal
\nNo. 1109 of 1963 is against an order of the same High Court,
\ndated  May 9, 1962 declining to certify the case under\tArt.
\n133 of the Constitution as in the opinion of the High  Court
\nthe proceedings from which the appeal arose before the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  not\t a civil proceeding  within  Art.  133.\t  As
\nspecial\t leave has been granted against the judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court  and we are of opinion that the  appeal  against
\nthat  judgment\tmust  be  dismissed,  we  do  not  think  it
\nnecessary to decide the other appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts  of\tthe case may now  be  stated  briefly.\t The
\nappellant  Company  is the successor of\t a  private  concern
\nwhich  went under the name of Kays Construction Company\t and
\nwas  owned  by\tone Mr. H. M. Khosla  who  is  now  Managing
\nDirector  of  the appellant Company.  It  appears  that\t Mr.
\nKhosla found it unprofitable to continue the business as his
\nown  and he stopped it for a while before Kays\tConstruction
\nCo.  (Private)\tLtd.  came into\t existence.   The  appellant
\nCompany\t took  over the business and with it,  some  of\t the
\nworkmen\t of the former concern but not all.  This led to  an
\nIndustrial dispute before the Allahabad Industrial  Tribunal
\n(Sugar)\t and an award was made on January 31, 1958.  One  of
\nthe  questions\tin  dispute  before  the  Tribunal  was\t the
\nreinstatement and back wages of the workmen who were not re-
\nemployed  by the appellant Company.  The Tribunal  delivered
\nan  award.   The parties to this appeal have  not  cared  to
\nproduce\t the award but an extract from it relevant  to\tthis
\npart  of  the controversy is on the record and\tit  runs  as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “As a result of my findings above, I hold that
\n\t      management  of Messrs.  Kays Construction\t Co.
\n\t      (Private) Limited, Allahabad, are required  to
\n\t      reinstate\t  the  old  workmen  given  in\t the
\n\t      Annexure\tof Messrs.  Kays  Construction\tCo.,
\n\t      Allahabad.  They will be restored in their old
\n\t      or  equivalent  jobs and given  continuity  of
\n\t      service.\t In  view of the  somewhat  peculiar
\n\t      features\tof  this  case and  in\tthe  largest
\n\t      interest\tof the Industry, I  would,  however,
\n\t      order  that  the workmen be paid only  50\t per
\n\t      cent, of their
\n278<\/span>
\n\t      back  wages for the period they were  forcibly
\n\t      kept out of employment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
After  this  award a large number of the  workmen  preferred
\nclaims\tfor their back wages purporting to do so  under\t the
\nfirst sub.section of s. 6-H of the U.P. Industrial  Disputes
\nAct,  1947.  That section, shorn of provisions which do\t not
\nconcern us, reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “6-H(1) Where any money is due to the  workmen
\n\t      from  an\temployer  under\t the  provisions  of
\n\t      Section  6-H  to\t6-R under  a  settlement  or
\n\t      award,   or  under  an  award  given   by\t  an
\n\t      adjudicator  or the State Industrial  Tribunal
\n\t      appointed\t or  constituted  under\t this\tAct,
\n\t      before  the commencement of the Uttar  Pradesh
\n\t      Industrial     Disputes\t  (Amendment\t and
\n\t      Miscellaneous   Provisions)  Act,\t 1956,\t the
\n\t      workman  may, without prejudice to  any  other
\n\t      mode  of recovery, make an application to\t the
\n\t      State Government for the recovery of the money
\n\t      due  to  him, and if the State  Government  is
\n\t      satisfied\t that any money is so due, it  shall
\n\t      issue  a\tcertificate for the  amount  to\t the
\n\t      collector\t who  shall proceed to\trecover\t the
\n\t      same as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
\n\t      (2)   Where any workman is entitled to receive
\n\t      from the employer any benefit which is capable
\n\t      of  being\t computed  in terms  of\t money,\t the
\n\t      amount   at  which  such\tbenefit\t should\t  be
\n\t      computed\tmay subject to any rule that may  be
\n\t      made  under  this Act be\tdetermined  by\tsuch
\n\t      Labour  Court  as\t may be\t specified  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf by the State Government, and the amount
\n\t      so determined may be recovered as provided for
\n\t      in subsection (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
The  appellant Company made a large number of objections  to
\nthis demand before the Labour Commissioner, U.P. to whom the
\npowers\tof the State Government under the first\t sub-section
\nof  S.\t6-H had been delegated.\t These\tobjections,  briefly
\nstated,\t were that some of the workmen had already  accepted
\nemployment  either with the appellant Company  or  elsewhere
\nand  that  some\t of  them were either  not  parties  to\t the
\noriginal  dispute or had died subsequent to the award.\t The
\nappellant Company also contended that as the exact number of
\ndays for which different workmen had been forcibly kept\t out
\nof employment was not determined an order
\n279<\/span>
\nunder S. 6-H(1) could not be passed.  There were some  other
\ncontentions into which it is not necessary to go because the
\ncase now lies within a narrow compass.\n<\/p>\n
On July 21, 1958 the Labour Commissioner, purporting to\t act
\nunder  the first sub-section of s. 6-H issued a\t certificate
\nto  the\t Collector,  Allahabad\tfor  the  recovery  of\t Rs.
\n1,06,588-6-6.\tCertain objections having been filed by\t the
\nappellant Company before the State Government, the  Regional
\nConciliation  Officer, Allahabad was ordered to\t verify\t the
\nclaims.\t  In  the meantime, the Labour\tCommissioner  issued
\nanother certificate on September 9, 1959 by which the sum to
\nbe  recovered was reduced to Rs. 50,654-9-6.  This was\tsaid
\nto  be certainly due and it was stated that for the  balance
\nanother certificate would issue after the claims were  fully
\nverified.   On September 10, 1959, the Collector  passed  an
\norder  which was communicated telegraphically to  the  Chief
\nMechanical Engineer, North-East Railway, Gorukhpur demanding
\nthe  said sum for payment to the workmen, from the  security
\ndeposited by the appellant Company with the Chief Mechanical
\nEngineer.  On November 2, 1959 the appellant Company filed a
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the Constitution  to  have\t the
\norders\tdated September 9 and 10, 1959 quashed by a writ  of
\ncertiorari  or by any other suitable order or direction\t and
\nfor release of some property which, it may be mentioned, was
\nunder  attachment  after the first certificate\twas  issued.
\nThe  petition  was  heard  by  Mr.  Justice  Broome  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court and was allowed by him.  He quashed the
\ntwo orders of the Labour Commissioner and the attachment  of
\nthe  property  on  condition  that  the\t Company   furnished
\nadequate  security  to\tthe  satisfaction  of  the  District
\nMagistrate of Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n
The  dispute was considerably narrowed before Broom  J.\t The
\nonly  question that was considered was whether the claim  of
\nthe  workmen  before  the Labour  Commissioner\tfell  to  be
\nconsidered  under the first or the second sub-section of  s.
\n6-H.   Mr. Justice Broome relying upon the analogy of M.  S.
\nN.  S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli v. Rajaram and  Another<\/a>(1)
\ndecided\t under\ts. 33-C of the Industrial Disputes  Act\t and
\nSesamusa Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others (2  )
\ndecided\t under s. 20 of the Industrial\tDisputes  (Appellate
\nTribunal)  Act,\t 1950,\theld that as the  exact\t amount\t was
\nrequired  to  be  determined, proceedings had  to  be  taken
\nbefore\tthe  Labour Court under the  second  sub-section  to
\ndetermine the money equivalent of the “benefit” to which the
\nworkmen were
\n(1) [1960] 1 L.L.J. 336.\n<\/p>\n
Sup.\/65-2
\n(2) A.I.R. 1955 Patna 49.\n<\/p>\n
280<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled  before  the  certificate could  issue.   In  other
\nwords,\tBroome\tJ.was opinion that the\tapplication  of\t the
\nfirst sub-section of s.\t 6-H   was   premature\t and\tthus
\nerroneous.\n<\/p>\n
Against this decision an appeal was filed under the Letters
\nPatent of the High Court and by the order, now under appeal,
\nthe judgment of Broome J. was reversed.\t The Division  Bench
\nheld  that the words of the second sub-section “any  benefit
\nwhich  is  capable  of being computed  in  terms  of  money”
\nindicated  benefits like free quarters or  free\t electricity
\nand not something which a workman earned through his labour.
\nReliance  was placed upon a decision of this Court in S.  S.
\nShetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.<\/a>(“) where Bhagwati J. has pointed
\nout  that  if any benefit awarded by the  Tribunal  was\t not
\nexpressed  in  terms of money it was necessary\tto  have  it
\ncomputed in terms of money before the appropriate Government
\ncould be asked to help in the recovery under s. 20(2) of the
\nIndustrial  Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1950.  In\t the
\nopinion of the Division Bench this decision supported  their
\nconclusion  that  the  computation in terms of\tmoney  of  a
\n‘benefit’  was\tsomething different from  mere\tarithmetical
\ncalculation  of\t the amount of back wages.   The  Divisional
\nBench\tdistinguished  Kasturi\t&  Sons\t (P)  Ltd.   v.\t  N.
\nSalivatesaram  &  Anr.<\/a>(2) on the ground that s.\t 17  of\t the
\nWorking\t Journalists (Conditions of Service &  Miscellaneous
\nProvisions) Act, 1955 referred expressly to money due by way
\nof  compensation,  gratuity and wages.\tThe case  in  Punjab
\nNational  Bank Ltd. v. Kharbunda(3) where it was  held\tthat
\nmonetary advantage or profit was not necessarily outside the
\nword ‘benefit’ as used in s. 33C of the Industrial  Disputes
\nAct  1947, was also distinguished.  In view of\tthese  cases
\nthe  Division  Bench did not follow the two rulings  of\t the
\nHigh  Courts  cited  earlier and another  reported  in\tShri
\nAmarsinghji Mills Ltd. v. Nagarashua (M.P.) & Ors.(4).
\nIt  is\tcontended  before  us  that  the  judgment  of\t the
\nDivisional Bench is erroneous in its interpretation of s. 6-
\nH(1)  and  (2).\t The question thus is how are the  two\tsub-
\nsections to be read ? This section is analogous to s. 33C of
\nthe  Industrial\t Disputes  Act,\t 1947  and  s.\t20  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950,  It  is
\nsignificant  that  in  all the three  statutes\tthe  cognate
\nsection\t is divided into two parts and the first part  deals
\nwith recovery of ‘money due’ to a workman under an award and
\nthe  second  deals with a ‘benefit’ computable in  terms  of
\nmoney.\tUnder the first sub-section the State Government (or
\nits delegate), if
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 442.\t\t\t\t (2)  [1959]
\nS.C.R. I.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 977.\t\t       (4) [1961]  1
\nL.L.J. 581.\n<\/p>\n
281<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfied  that\t any  money is due, is enabled\tto  issue  a
\ncertificate  to the collector who then proceeds\t to  recover
\nthe  amount as an arrear of land revenue.  The\tsecond\tpart
\nthen speaks of a benefit computable in terms of money  which
\nbenefit,  after\t it is so computed by a Tribunal,  is  again
\nrecoverable  in\t the same way as money due under  the  first
\npart.  This scheme runs through S. 6-H sub-ss. (1) and (2).
\nThat  there is some difference between the two\tsub-sections
\nis obvious enough.  It arises from the fact that the benefit
\ncontemplated  in the second sub-section is not\t“money\tdue”
\nbut  some advantage or perquisite which can be\treckoned  in
\nterms of money.\t The Divisional Bench has given apt examples
\nof benefits which are computable in terms of money, but till
\nso commuted are not “money due”.  For instance, loss of\t the
\nbenefit\t of free quarters is not loss of “money due”  though
\nsuch  loss can be reckoned in terms of money by inquiry\t and
\nequation.  The contrast between ,’money due” on the one hand
\nand  a\t“benefit”  which is not “money due”  but  which\t can
\nbecome\tso after the money equivalent is determined  on\t the
\nother, marks out the areas of the operation of the two\tsub-
\nsections.  If the word “benefit” were taken to cover a\tcase
\nof  mere arithmetical calculation of wages, the\t first\tsub-
\nsection\t  would\t hardly\t have  any  play.   Every  case\t  of
\ncalculation, however, simple, would have to go first  before
\na  Tribunal.  In our judgment, a case such as  the  present,
\nwhere  the  money  due\tis back\t wages\tfor  the  period  of
\nunemployment is covered by the first sub-section and not the
\nsecond.\t No doubt some calculation enters the  determination
\nof  the\t amount for which the  certificate  will  eventually
\nissue  but this calculation is not of the type mentioned  in
\nthe  second  sub-section and cannot be made to\tfit  in\t the
\nelaborate phrase “benefit which is capable of being computed
\nin  terms of money”.  The contrast in the  two\tsub-sections
\nbetween\t “money\t due” under the first  sub-section  and\t the
\nnecessity of reckoning the benefit in terms of money  before
\nthe benefit becomes “money due” under the second sub-section
\nshows that mere arithmetical calculations of the ).mount due
\nare  not  required  to be dealt\t with  under  the  elaborate
\nprocedure of the second sub-section.  The appellant no doubt
\nconjured  up  a number of obstructions in the  way  of\tthis
\nsimple calculation.  These objections dealt with the “amount
\ndue”   and  they  are  being  investigated   because   State
\nGovernment must first satisfy itself that the amount claimed
\nis in fact due.\t But the antithesis between “money due”\t and
\na  “benefit which must be computed in terms of money”  still
\nremains,  for  the  inquiry being made is not  of  the\tkind
\ncontemplated by the second sub-section but is one for
\n282<\/span>
\nthe  satisfaction  of the State Government under  the  first
\nsub-section.   It  is  verification of the  claim  to  money
\nwithin the first sub-section and not determination in  terms
\nof  money  of the value of a benefit.  The judgment  of\t the
\nDivision Bench was thus right.\tThe appeal fails and will be
\ndismissed  with\t costs.\t The companion appeal will  also  be
\ndismissed but we make no order about costs in that appeal.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
283<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1488, 1965 SCR (2) 276 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: KAYS CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/11\/1964 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. […]<\/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-125674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 - 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\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-18T16:06:38+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\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T16:06:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2267,\"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\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\",\"name\":\"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T16:06:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 - 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\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-18T16:06:38+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\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964","datePublished":"1964-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T16:06:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964"},"wordCount":2267,"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\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964","name":"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T16:06:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kays-construction-co-p-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-on-26-november-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 26 November, 1964"}]},{"@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\/125674","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=125674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}