{"id":126390,"date":"1977-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977"},"modified":"2017-07-30T13:52:29","modified_gmt":"2017-07-30T08:22:29","slug":"orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977","title":{"rendered":"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 2014, \t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 295<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRANNATH VISHWANATH RAWLLEY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/08\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 2014\t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 295\n 1977 SCC  (3) 535\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1979 SC1977\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nArbitration  Act,  1940 (10 of\t1940)-S.  20-Scope  of-Extra\nclaim, over and above the claim made in the plaint and shown\nin  the reference, made before the  arbitrator-Arbitrator-If\ncompetent  to entertain fresh claim without  reference\tfrom\ncourt.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent entered into a contract with  the  appellant\nfor  the  transport of iron ore from quarry Nos.   1  and  2\nbeing  worked out by the appellant, to the  railway  siding.\nAs  the\t instance  of the  appellant  the  respondent  later\ntransported  iron  ore\tfrom  quarry No.  5  situated  at  a\ndistance of about 2 KM from the other two quarries.   Having\nfailed\tto recover from the appellant the extra\t cost  which\nwas  Rs.  68,582 for transport and a sum of Rs.\t 25,000\t for\nconstructing a road between quarry Nos.\t 1 and 2 and  quarry\nNo.  5,\t the respondent filed in the  court  of\t subordinate\nJudge  an  application under s. 20 of the  Arbitration\tAct,\n1940.  The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator.\nBefore\tthe  arbitrator the respondent made a claim  of\t Rs.\n68,582, apart from the claim for an identical amount made in\nthe  plaint.   The  arbitrator\tdisallowed  the\t claim\t for\nconstruction of the road but allowed the additional claim of\nthe respondent and gave an award for a sum of Rs. 1,16,570.\nThe  appellant's  application alleging that  the  arbitrator\nacted without jurisdiction in allowing the additional  claim\nof  Rs. 68,582 was rejected by the Subordinate Judge on\t the\nground\tthat there was no error apparent on the face of\t the\nrecord\t and  that  the\t arbitrator  did  not\texceed\t his\njurisdiction.\nThe High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :\t When an agreement is filed in court  and  order  of\nreference is made, then. the claim as a result of the  order\nof  reference  is  limited to a particular  relief  and\t the\narbitrator  cannot  enlarge the scope of the  reference\t and\nentertain fresh claims without a further order of  reference\nfrom the court. [299H]\nIn  the\t instant  case\tthe  arbitrator\t has  exceeded\t his\njurisdiction  in embarking on the extra claim.\tput  forward\nbefore\thim  by\t the respondent.  When the  claim  had\tbeen\nspecified in the plaint and when the reference was  confined\nto  the claim made in the plaint, the arbitrator would\thave\nto restrict his award only to that claim. [299F]\nThe  High  Court has misconstrued the claim.  There  was  no\nclaim for transport of iron ore between quarry Nos.  1 and 2\nand the railway siding; the only claim was for the transport\nfor the extra distance. [299A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 769 of 1976.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree  dated<br \/>\n20-2-76 of the Orissa High Court in M.A. 75\/75.<br \/>\nK.   Sawhney and M. K. Garg for the Appellant<br \/>\nG.   B.\t Pai,  Miss  Uma  Mehta and  R.\t K.  Mehta  for\t the<br \/>\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKAILASAM,  J.-This appeal is preferred by the Orissa  Mining<br \/>\nCorporation  Ltd., (a Government of Orissa  undertaking)  by<br \/>\nspecial<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">296<\/span><br \/>\nleave  against\tthe judgment and decree dated  February\t 20,<br \/>\n1976  of  the High Court of Orissa whereby  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nupheld\tthe  judgment  of the  Subordinate  Judge,  Rourkela<br \/>\nrefusing to set aside the award of the arbitrator  directing<br \/>\npayment of certain moneys to the respondent herein.<br \/>\nThe respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business of<br \/>\ntransport, mining loading and unloading etc. with its office<br \/>\nat Rourkela.  The appellant called for a tender for the work<br \/>\nof raising of iron ore in Khandadhar Mines and\ttransporting<br \/>\nit  to Barsuan Railway siding, including wagon loading.\t  An<br \/>\nagreement  was entered into between the, appellant  and\t the<br \/>\nrespondent for a period of one year with effect from May 25,<br \/>\n1971.  The estimated value of the contract was Rs. 6.77,040.<br \/>\nThe respondent under the terms of the contract was  required<br \/>\nto  work  in  quarry Nos. 1 and 2 in  Khandadhar  Mines\t but<br \/>\nduring\tthe progress of the work, on the directions  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant, the respondent worked in quarry No. 5 also  which<br \/>\nwas at a distance of about 2 K.M. from quarry Nos. 1 and  2.<br \/>\nAs  the\t respondent had to cover an extra  distance  between<br \/>\nquarry\tNos. 1 &amp; 2 and quarry No 5 he demanded extra  cost<br \/>\nfor  the transport.  The respondent also demanded  cost\t for<br \/>\nconstruction of a road at the schedule rate provided by\t the<br \/>\nState  P.W.D., Orissa, and submitted two bills, Bill  No.  1<br \/>\ndated  March 31, 1972 and Bill No,. 2 dated May 1, 1972\t for<br \/>\nRs. 62,477.50 and Rs, 6,104.60 respectively amounting to Rs.<br \/>\n68,582.00  in  all for the extra load  in  transporting.   A<br \/>\nclaim was also made towards the cost of constructing a\troad<br \/>\nfrom  quarry No. 5 for Rs. 25,000.  As in spite of  repeated<br \/>\nreminders  the\tappellant  did not pay\tfor  the  bills\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  called upon the appellant to refer the  disputes<br \/>\nfor  arbitration according to the contract.  The  respondent<br \/>\nfiled an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act<br \/>\nfor  a direction to the appellant to file the  agreement  in<br \/>\ncourt  and for the appointment of a Superintending  Engineer<br \/>\nof  the State P.W.D. as the sole arbitrator and a  reference<br \/>\nto  him to give his award on the dispute.   The\t respondent,<br \/>\nfor  the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction,\t valued\t the<br \/>\nsuit  at Rs. 93,582, The Subordinate Judge, Rourkela,  after<br \/>\nnotice\tto  the\t appellant and\tafter  hearing\tthe  parties<br \/>\nordered &#8220;that the said agreement be filed, and it is further<br \/>\nordered\t that the following matters in difference  specified<br \/>\nin the said agreement No. 4\/F2 of 1971 arising in this\tsuit<br \/>\nnamely for demand of payment of Rs. 93,582.00 on account  of<br \/>\nraising iron ore from quarry No. 1 and 2 at Khandadhar\tMine<br \/>\nand  transporting  the same, to the Barsuan  Railway  siding<br \/>\nincluding  loading of wagons and also for the same  work  as<br \/>\nper  the subsequent order in respect of quarry No.  5  which<br \/>\nwas at a distance of 2 kilometers away from quarry No. 1 and<br \/>\n2 and for extra charges for this extra load of\ttransporting<br \/>\nand for construction of a road from quarry Nos.\t 1 and 2  to<br \/>\nthe, quarry No. 5 be referred for determination&#8230;&#8230; of the<br \/>\nArbitrator.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  arbitrator on receipt of the order of reference  issued<br \/>\nnotice\tto  the\t parties calling upon  them  to\t file  their<br \/>\nrespective  statements\tand  the  documents  on\t which\tthey<br \/>\nintended  to rely on and to produce witnesses.\tThe  parties<br \/>\nfiled their respective statements and the arbitrator took up<br \/>\nthe hearing of the dispute.  The respondent in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 297<\/span><br \/>\nthese proceedings made a claim of Rs. 68,582 under the\thead<br \/>\n&#8220;4.  Extra as the distance came to 14 Km. after verification<br \/>\nfrom the same quantity mentioned in the Bill No. 1 and\t11.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe   arbitrator  inspected  the  site\tand   measured\t the<br \/>\ndistances.\t Regarding the claimof\t Rs. 25,000  for<br \/>\nconstruction of the road the arbitrator found that     the<br \/>\nrespondent is not entitled to it and rejected the claim.<br \/>\nRegarding the claim for transport of the iron ore for the<br \/>\nextra  distance\t from quarry No. 5, the respondent  made  an<br \/>\nadditionalclaim\t    for Rs. 68,582 apart from the claim<br \/>\nwhich he made in the plaintunder Bill Nos.  1 and 11  for<br \/>\nRs. 68,582 on the ground that the extra distance came to 1.4<br \/>\nKms.  after verification.  The arbitrator found\t the  actual<br \/>\ndistance  between  quarry  No.\t1 and 2\t and  quarry  No.  5<br \/>\napproximately  1.70 Kms. and allowed a sum of  Rs.  1,16,570<br \/>\nunder this head.  He also directed the appellant to  release<br \/>\nthe  security  deposits and earnest money amounting  to\t Rs.<br \/>\n32,954.48  and\tpay the respondent on or before\t August\t 31,<br \/>\n1974.  The award also provided that the appellant shall\t pay<br \/>\ninterest  to the respondent at the rate of six per cent\t per<br \/>\nannum  on the amount of award and on the amount of  security<br \/>\nand earnest money from the date of the passing of the  award<br \/>\ni.e. May 31, 1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved  at this award the appellant filed an\t application<br \/>\nbefore\tthe Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, the court that\t had<br \/>\nmade  the  reference to arbitration, for setting  aside\t the<br \/>\naward  or  in the alternative for remitting  the  award\t for<br \/>\nfurther consideration various contentions were raised in the<br \/>\napplication.  It is material for this appeal to ,refer\tonly<br \/>\nto  the main ground of attack on the award, namely that\t the<br \/>\narbitrator  had traversed beyond the reference made  by\t the<br \/>\ncourt by its order of reference in that though the claim was<br \/>\nonly  for  Rs.\t93,582\tinclusive  of  the  claim  for\troad<br \/>\nconstruction  for  Rs.\t25,000 which was  negatived  by\t the<br \/>\narbitrator, he acted without jurisdiction    in allowing any<br \/>\nclaim overRs. 68,582.It was also contended that\t  the<br \/>\narbitrator was in errorin  directing  the  return  of  the<br \/>\nsecurity deposits and earnest money.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, by his order dated February<br \/>\n11, 1975, found that there was no error apparent on the face<br \/>\nof  the record which may make the, award unsustainable.\t  It<br \/>\nalso   found  that  the\t arbitrator  did  not\texceed\t his<br \/>\njurisdiction  and decreed the suit as per the terms  of\t the<br \/>\naward.,<br \/>\nDissatisfied  with  the order of the Subordinate  Judge\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  Orissa  Mining  Corporation Ltd.,  took  up\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tin  appeal to the High Court of\t Orissa.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  confirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge  holding<br \/>\nthat  the  order  of  reference made by\t the  court  to\t the<br \/>\narbitrator Was not only in respect of the respondent&#8217;s claim<br \/>\nfor Rs. 93.582 on account of raising of iron ore from quarry<br \/>\nNos.   1 and 2 and transporting the same to Barsuan  rialway<br \/>\nstation\t but  also for the same work as per  the  subsequent<br \/>\norder in respect of quarry No. 5 which was at a distance  of<br \/>\n2  kilometres  away  from quarry Nos.  1  and  2.  The\tmain<br \/>\ncontention  that was raised before the High Court  was\tthat<br \/>\nthe  reference to the arbitrator being for  determining\t the<br \/>\ncorrectness of the respondent&#8217;s claim of Rs. 93,582,<br \/>\n8&#8211; 768SCI\/77<br \/>\n29 8<br \/>\nonly  the  arbitrator  went  beyond  his  jurisdiction\t and<br \/>\nauthority  by  giving  an award\t for  Rs.  1,16,570  towards<br \/>\ntransportation\tcharges\t in favour of the  respondent.\t The<br \/>\ndirection  as  to the refund of the  security  deposits\t and<br \/>\nearnest money was also challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High  Court held that &#8220;In the order  of  reference\t Rs.<br \/>\n93,582\thas  been  referred to as a dispute  on\t account  of<br \/>\nraising iron ores from quarry Nos. 1 and 2 and\ttransporting<br \/>\nthe same to Barsuan railway siding.  The dispute relating to<br \/>\nextra claim on account of raising and transporting iron ores<br \/>\nas per the, subsequent order from quarry No. 5 has also been<br \/>\nspecifically  referred to the arbitrator as it appears\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  order of reference.  The correctness of  the  reference<br \/>\norder  not  having been challenged the same is not  open  to<br \/>\nquestion.&#8221; It further held that &#8220;it is futile, to argue that<br \/>\nthe  reference made to the arbitrator was only\tconfined  to<br \/>\nthe respondent&#8217;s claim of Rs. 93,582 and that the arbitrator<br \/>\nin   awarding  Rs.  1,16,570  exceeded\this  authority\t and<br \/>\njurisdiction.&#8221; We feel that the High Court has\tmisconstrued<br \/>\nthe  claim.   There was no dispute in regard to\t raising  of<br \/>\niron ore from quarry Nos. 1 and 2 and transporting it to the<br \/>\nrailway\t siding.  The whole dispute was regarding the  claim<br \/>\nfor  transporting the iron ore for the extra  distance\tfrom<br \/>\nquarry No. 5. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint make\tthis<br \/>\nposition   clear.   Paragraph  5  states  that\t while\t the<br \/>\nrespondent was executing the work in quarry Nos.  1 and 2 he<br \/>\nwas ordered to work in quarry No. 5 which was at a  distance<br \/>\nof  about  2  Kms from quarry Nos.  1 and  2.  According  to<br \/>\nparagraph  6  the  respondent demanded extra  cost  for\t the<br \/>\ntransport  from the said quarry as the\tdistance  increased.<br \/>\nParagraph   7  states  that  accordingly   the,\t  respondent<br \/>\nsubmitted  bill\t No. 1 dated March 31, 1972 and bill  No.  2<br \/>\ndated  May 1, 1972 making a total claim of Rs. 68,582.\t The<br \/>\npoint  of attack on the award was therefore missed  by\tthe.<br \/>\nHigh  Court.  it was that while the total  claim  under\t the<br \/>\nplaint\tregarding  the\ttransport  of  extra  distance\t was<br \/>\nconfined  to Rs. 68,582 and the reference to the  arbitrator<br \/>\nwas  also for the same amount, the arbitrator  acted  beyond<br \/>\nthe  scope  of the arbitration in taking  into\taccount\t the<br \/>\nclaim  which was put forward by the respondent for an  extra<br \/>\nsum  of\t Rs. 68,582.  It was sought to be contended  by\t Mr.<br \/>\nPai,  the learned counsel for the, respondent,\tthat  though<br \/>\nthe  plaint  claim was confined to Rs. 68,582 the  order  of<br \/>\nreference is wider in scope and included other claims beyond<br \/>\nthe claim for Rs. 93,582.  The order of reference is  rather<br \/>\nvague and not clear and is in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      &#8221;\t    and\t it  is\t further  ordered   that the<br \/>\n\t      following\t matters in difference specified  in<br \/>\n\t      the said agreement No. 4\/F2 of 1971 arising in<br \/>\n\t      this suit namely for demand of payment of\t Rs.<br \/>\n\t      93,582  on  account of raising iron  ore\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      quarry  Nos.  1 and 2 at Khandadhar  Mine\t and<br \/>\n\t      transporting  the same to the Barsuan  Railway<br \/>\n\t      siding  including loading of wagons  and\talso<br \/>\n\t      for the same work as per the subsequent  order<br \/>\n\t      in  respect  of quarry No. 5 which  was  at  a<br \/>\n\t      distance of 2 K.M. away from quarry Nos. 1 and<br \/>\n\t      2 and for extra charges for this extra load of<br \/>\n\t\t\t    transporting&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  order of reference appears to have been an\t attempt  by<br \/>\nthe  court to put all the reliefs claimed for in the  plaint<br \/>\nin one sentence.  As<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 299<\/span><br \/>\nadmittedly there was no claim for transport of the iron\t ore<br \/>\nbetween quarry Nos. 1 and 2 and the railway siding, the only<br \/>\nclaim  was for the transport of the iron ore for  the  extra<br \/>\ndistance.   The\t view of the High Court was therefore  on  a<br \/>\nmisunderstanding of the relief prayed for by the  respondent<br \/>\nin the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  Pai while admitting that the reference to:\t arbitration<br \/>\nwas  only as regards the transport of the iorn ore  for\t the<br \/>\nextra distance submitted that the claim was not confined  to<br \/>\nRs. 93,582 only but should be understood as a claim for\t the<br \/>\nextra  transport which may amount to more than\tRs.  93,582.<br \/>\nWe  refrain from going into the merits of the claim for\t not<br \/>\nonly the extent of the extra distance covered is in  dispute<br \/>\nbut  also  the charges for transport for a  kilometer.\t The<br \/>\nplea of the respondent in that while he, submitted Bill Nos.<br \/>\n1 and 2 and claimed Rs. 68,582, the Bills were on the  basis<br \/>\nthat  the  extra distance was only 1 K.M. but  actually\t the<br \/>\ndistance  was  2  Kms. and therefore he\t claimed  twice\t the<br \/>\namount.\t  The respondent submitted that the distance  should<br \/>\nbe  construed as 2 Kms. though it was found to be  1.4\tKms.<br \/>\nOn behalf ,of the appellant it was submitted that this\tplea<br \/>\nshould not be entertained as, the original Bills were on the<br \/>\nbasis  of 2 Kms. and as the distance has been proved  to  be<br \/>\nshorter he would not be entitled even to the claim made,  in<br \/>\nthe plaint.  The contentions on the merits need not be\tgone<br \/>\ninto.\n<\/p>\n<p>On a reading of the plaint, we are, satisfied that the claim<br \/>\nfor  transporting  the iron ore for the\t extra\tdistance  is<br \/>\nlimited\t to Rs. 68,582 ,and the whole claim after  including<br \/>\nthe  claim for construction of the road is confined only  to<br \/>\nRs.  93,582.   The arbitrator having disallowed\t Rs.  25,000<br \/>\nbeing  the  claim for construction of the road\tshould\thave<br \/>\nconfined  his  award  only to.\tRs. 68,582.   The  claim  of<br \/>\nadditional  Rs.\t 68,582 before the  arbitrator\twas  clearly<br \/>\nbeyond the order of reference which incorporated the reliefs<br \/>\nprayed for in the plaint by the respondent herein.  It would<br \/>\nhave  been  different if the entire claim  relating  to\t the<br \/>\ntransport  of the iron ore for the extra distance  was\tmade<br \/>\nwithout specifying the amount of claim.\t When the amount has<br \/>\nbeen.  specified  in the plaint and when  the  reference  is<br \/>\nconfined  to  the claim made in the plaint,  the  arbitrator<br \/>\nwould have to restrict his award only to the claim.  We\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied that in this case the arbitrator has exceeded\t his<br \/>\njurisdiction  in embarking on the claim that was  the  first<br \/>\ntime  put  forward before him by the respondent.   There  is<br \/>\ntherefore an error ,apparent on the face of the award.<br \/>\nSection\t 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940,  provides<br \/>\nthat where a difference has arisen and where any person have<br \/>\nentered into an arbitration agreement they may apply to\t the<br \/>\ncourt  having  jurisdiction  in\t the  matter  to  which\t the<br \/>\nagreement  relates,  that the agreement be filed  in  court.<br \/>\nSub-section (4) to section 20 provides that the court  shall<br \/>\norder the agreement to be filed, and shall make an order  of<br \/>\nreference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties.\tWhen<br \/>\nan  agreement  is filed in court and order of  reference  is<br \/>\nmade then the claim as a result of the order of reference is<br \/>\nlimited\t to  a particular relief and the  arbitrator  cannot<br \/>\nenlarge the scope of the reference and entertain fresh<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">300<\/span><br \/>\nclaims without a further order of reference from the  court.<br \/>\nOn  a construction of section 20 of the Arbitration Act\t the<br \/>\nplea  on behalf of the appellant will have to  be  accepted.<br \/>\nIn  the circumstances of the case we do not think  that\t the<br \/>\naward  should be set aside,&#8217; as the learned counsel for\t the<br \/>\nappellant has also no objection in accepting the award in so<br \/>\nfar as it relates to Rs. 68,582.  We feel that the award  to<br \/>\nthe  extent of Rs. 68,582 and interest at the rate of 6\t per<br \/>\ncent  per  annum from the date of the  award  be  confirmed.<br \/>\nRegarding  the direction as to return of  security  deposits<br \/>\nand  earnest money, as it is not the case of  the  appellant<br \/>\nthat the respondent is not entitled to the amount, we do not<br \/>\nfeel  called upon to interfere with the order directing\t the<br \/>\nappellant to pay the, amount to the respondent with interest<br \/>\nat  6%\tper annum from the date of the award  i.e.  May\t 31,<br \/>\n1974.  The parties will bear their own costs.<br \/>\nP.B.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">301<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 2014, 1978 SCR (1) 295 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: PRANNATH VISHWANATH RAWLLEY DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/08\/1977 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. CITATION: 1977 AIR [&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-126390","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>Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 - 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\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\" \/>\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=\"1977-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-30T08:22:29+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T08:22:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2500,\"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\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\",\"name\":\"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T08:22:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977\"}]},{\"@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":"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 - 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\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-30T08:22:29+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977","datePublished":"1977-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T08:22:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977"},"wordCount":2500,"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\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977","name":"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T08:22:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/orissa-mining-corporation-ltd-vs-prannath-vishwanath-rawlley-on-12-august-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977"}]},{"@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\/126390","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=126390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}