{"id":132748,"date":"1966-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966"},"modified":"2017-10-02T16:06:16","modified_gmt":"2017-10-02T10:36:16","slug":"hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 526, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 543<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  526\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 543\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940), s. 14(2)-Award-Copy  of\naward  required to be filed in Court-Umpire certifying\tcopy\nof award to be a true copy and then signing award-Such\tcopy\nwhether\t a  'signed copy' within  meaning  of  section-Sign,\nmeaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tentered into a contract with the,  Union  of\nIndia  for the construction of certain railway bridges.\t  On\ndisputes arising the matter went to arbitration and then  to\nan  umpire.   After  the  umpire  had  made  his  award\t the\nappellant  filed  an application under s. 14 of\t the  Indian\nArbitration Act 1940, praying that the umpire be directed to\nfile  the award or a signed Copy thereof in the terms of  s.\n14(2).\t The umpire filed in the Court a copy at the top  of\nwhich he wrote : \"now I hereby reproduce a true copy of\t the\nsaid  award which is as follows.\" At the end of the copy  of\nthe award he wrote : \"Certified as correct copy of the award\ndated  27th  May 1961.\" Under this  the\t umpire's  signature\nappeared.  It was objected by the Union of India before\t the\ncourt that the copy of the award so filed was not a  \"signed\ncopy\"  of  the\taward as required by s.\t 14(2)\tbut  only  a\n\"certified copy\".  The objection was upheld by the court and\nthe appellants application for passing -a judgment in  terms\nof the award was dismissed.  A revision petition before\t the\nHigh Court failed.  The appellant then came to this Court by\nspecial leave.\nHELD  :\t When a document is an accurate or  true,  and\tfull\nreproduction  of  the original it would be a copy.   In\t the\npresent\t case  what was produced by the umpire\twas  a\ttrue\naccurate  and  full reproduction of the\t original.   It\t was\ntherefore a copy of the original. [845 H]\nIt  was also a signed copy because it bore the signature  of\nthe  umpire.  A document must be signed in such a way as  to\nmake  it appear that the person signing it is the author  of\nit, and if that appears it does not matter what the form  of\nan  instrument\tis,  or in what part  of  it  the  signature\noccurs.\t The fact that the umpire wrote the words \"certified\nas correct copy of the award dated the 27th May 1961\"  above\nhis  signature did not make any difference and the  document\nwas  still  a signed copy of the award.\t If  anything  these\nwords showed that the document filed was a true copy of\t the\naward. [846 D, H; 847 A-B]\nMohesh\tLal  v. Busunt Kumaree, I.L.R. (1881) VI  Cal.\t340,\nrelied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nDecember  17, 1964 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench)
\nat Delhi in Civil Revision No. 159-D of 1963.
\nM.   C.\t Setalvad,  Veda  Vyasa\t and K.\t K.  Jain.  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
S.   G.\t Patwardhan, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
844<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nWanchoo,  J. This is an appeal by special leave against\t the
\njudgment  of  the  Punjab  High\t Court\tand  arises  in\t the
\nfollowing  circumstances.   The\t appellant  entered  into  a
\ncontract  with\tthe Union of India, respondent\therein,\t for
\nconstruction of certain highway bridges.  In connection with
\nthe  execution of the contract, some disputes arose  between
\nthe  parties and were referred to the joint  arbitration  of
\nSri  B.\t K.  Guha  and\tSri N.\tP.  Gurjar.   As  there\t was
\ndifference  of\topinion\t between the  two  arbitrators,\t the
\nmatter\twas  referred  to  an  umpire,\tnamely,\t Sri  Dildar
\nHussain,  retired  Chief Engineer,  Hyderabad.\t The  umpire
\nrecorded  evidence of the parties and gave his award on\t May
\n27,  1961.  It appears that the award was made in  duplicate
\nand one copy was sent to each party.  On August 4, 1961, the
\nappellant made a petition before the Subordinate Judge First
\nClass, Delhi under ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, No.
\n10  of\t1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  it\t was
\nprayed that the umpire be directed by the court to cause the
\naward or a signed copy thereof together with any depositions
\nand documents which might have been taken and proved  before
\nhim  to\t be filed in court (s. 14).  It was  further  prayed
\nthat a judgment be passed in terms of the award (s. 17).
\nIt appears that on this petition the court issued notice  to
\nthe   umpire   to  file\t the  award  and   the\t arbitration
\nproceedings.  On September 13, 1961, the umpire wrote to the
\ncourt  that  he was forwarding along with  that\t letter\t the
\naward  in  the case duly signed and certified  by  him.\t  On
\nNovember  1, 1961, an objection was taken on behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent  that  the award said to have been filed  by\t the
\numpire\thad not been validly and legally filed under  s.  14
\nand  as such no proceedings in pursuance of the said  filing
\ncould be taken in court.\n<\/p>\n
This objection was considered as a preliminary objection  by
\nthe  Subordinate Judge.\t He came to the conclusion that\t the
\ndocument filed in court was neither the original award nor a
\nsigned\tcopy thereof, and as such the court could  not\ttake
\nany  action  on\t that document.\t He  therefore\tallowed\t the
\nobjection  and\tdismissed the application under\t s.  17\t for
\npassing\t a  judgment in terms of the award.   The  appellant
\nthen  went  in revision to the High Court.  The\t High  Court
\ndismissed the revision application holding that the document
\nfiled  in  court was admittedly not the original  award\t and
\nthat it was clear from a perusal of the document itself that
\nit  was\t not  a signed copy  thereof.\tCertain\t alternative
\narguments  were\t submitted  to the  High  Court\t which\twere
\nrejected   and\t the  revision\tapplication   thus   failed.
\nThereupon the appellant obtained special leave, and that  is
\nhow the matter has come up before us.\n<\/p>\n
The main question that has been argued on behalf of the\t ap-
\npellant is that the document in question is a signed copy of
\nthe
\n845<\/span>
\naward  within  the meaning of those words in  s.  14(2)\t and
\ntherefore  further proceedings should have been taken  under
\ns. 17 of the Act.  Now the relevant part of s. 14 (2)  reads
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2)  The arbitrators or umpire shall, at\t the
\n\t      request  of  any\tparty  to  the\t arbitration
\n\t      agreement\t or any person claiming\t under\tsuch
\n\t      party or if so directed by the court…. cause
\n\t      the  award  or a signed copy of  it,  together
\n\t      with  any depositions and documents which\t may
\n\t      have been taken and proved before them, to  be
\n\t      filed in court………..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore  when\t a  notice  is issued  by  a  court  to\t the
\narbitrators  or\t umpire it is their duty to  file  in  court
\neither\tthe  award in original or a signed copy\t thereof  as
\ndirected  by  the court.  It is not in dispute that  in\t the
\npresent\t case  the original award has not been\tfiled.\t The
\ndispute\t is whether the document filed is a signed  copy  of
\nthe  award.  The main contention on behalf of the  appellant
\nis  that the document is a signed copy of the  award  within
\nthe meaning of those words in s. 14(2), and thus should have
\nbeen  acted  upon by the court.\t On the other  hand,  it  is
\ncontended  on  behalf of the respondent that what  has\tbeen
\nfiled is a certified copy of the award and not a signed copy
\nthereof,  and therefore it cannot be acted upon.   The\tHigh
\nCourt has accepted the contention of the respondent and\t all
\nthat  it has said in that behalf is that it is clear from  a
\nperusal\t of  the award that it is not a signed copy  of\t the
\naward but it is certified as correct copy of the award dated
\nthe  27th May, 1961.  Unfortunately, the High Court has\t not
\nconsidered what exactly the words “signed copy of the award”
\nmean, and it is to this problem that we must now turn.
\nNow  the  word “copy” as such is not defined in\t the  Indian
\nEvidence  Act,\tof 1872.  But we get an idea of what a\tcopy
\nis  from the provisions of s. 63 of the Evidence Act.\tThat
\nsection inter alia defines what secondary evidence means and
\nincludes namely–(i) certified copies as provided, in s.  76
\nof  the Evidence Act, (ii) copies made from the original  by
\nmechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy
\nof the copy, and copies compared with such copies, and (iii)
\ncopies made from or compared with the original.\t  Obviously,
\ntherefore a copy means a document prepared from the original
\nwhich  is  an  accurate or true copy of\t the  original.\t  In
\nWebster’s  New\tWorld Dictionary, the word “copy”  means  “a
\nthing  made  just  like\t another  ;  full  reproduction\t  or
\ntranscription”.\t What the word “copy” in s. 14(2)  therefore
\nrequires  is  that  it must be a full  reproduction  of\t the
\noriginal  and  that it should be accurate or true.   When  a
\ndocument is an accurate or true and full reproduction of the
\noriginal it would be a copy.  In the present case it is\t not
\nin dispute that what was produced by Sri Dildar Hussain\t was
\na  true or accurate and full reproduction of  the  original.
\nIt was therefore a copy of the original, and the
\n846<\/span>
\nonly question that remains is whether it was signed, for  if
\nit was signed, it would be a signed copy.\n<\/p>\n
This brings us to the meaning of the word “sign” as used  in
\nthe  expression\t “signed  copy”.   In  Webster’s  New  World
\nDictionary,  the word “sign” means “to write one’s name\t on,
\nas in acknowledging authorship, authorising action etc.”  To
\nwrite one’s name is signature.\tSection 3(56) of the General
\nClauses Act, No. 10 of 1897, has not defined the word “sign”
\nbut has extended its meaning with reference to a person\t who
\nis  unable  to\twrite his name to include  “mark”  with\t its
\ngrammatical   variations  and  cognate\texpressions.\tThis
\nprovision indicates that signing means writing one’s name on
\nsome document or paper.\t In Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree(1),
\na question arose as to what “signature” meant in  connection
\nwith  s. 20 of the Limitation Act, No. IX of 1871.   It\t was
\nobserved that “where a party to a contract signs his name in
\nany  part of it in such a way as to acknowledge that  he  is
\nthe party contracting, that is a sufficient signature”.\t  It
\nwas  further  observed that the document must be  signed  in
\nsuch  a way as to make it appear that the person signing  it
\nis the author of it, and if that appears it does not  matter
\nwhat  the form of the instrument is, or in what part  of  it
\nthe signature occurs. or?,,
\nWe accept these observations and are of the opinion that  so
\nlong  as there is the signature of the arbitrator or  umpire
\non  the copy of the award filed in court and it\t shows\tthat
\nthe person signing authenticated the accuracy or correctness
\nof  the copy of the document would be a signed copy  of\t the
\naward.\tIt would in such circumstances be immaterial whether
\nthe arbitrator or umpire put down the words “certified to be
\ntrue  copy”  before  signing  the copy\tof  the\t award.\t  If
\nanything, the addition of these words (namely, certified  to
\nbe  true  copy)\t would be the  clearest\t indication  of\t the
\nauthentication\tof  the copy as a true copy  of\t the  award,
\nwhich\tis   what  s.  14(2)  requires,\t so  long   as\t the
\nauthentication\tis under the signature of the arbitrator  or
\nthe  umpire himself.  In the present case, the document\t was
\nsent by the umpire along with a letter forwarding it to\t the
\ncourt.\tIn the letter it was stated that he was sending\t the
\naward only signed and certified by him.\t Then turning to the
\ndocument we find that it begins with the words “now I hereby
\nreproduce a true copy of the said award which is as follows”
\nand this is signed by Sri Dildar Hussain, the umpire.\tThen
\nfollows the copy of the award, at the end we find the  words
\n“certified as correct copy of the award dated the 27th\tMay,
\n1961  “.  Underneath  appears the signature  of\t Sri  Dildar
\nHussain,  the umpire.  Clearly therefore the document  filed
\nis a true or accurate and full reproduction of the  original
\naward  and it bears the signature of the umpire, Sri  Dildar
\nHussain, and thus is a signed copy of the award.
\n(1)(1881)1.L.R.6Cal.340.\n<\/p>\n
847<\/span><\/p>\n
The  fact  that\t the umpire wrote the  words  “certified  as
\ncorrect\t copy of the award dated the 27th May,\t1961”  above
\nhis  signatures does not in our opinion make any  difference
\nand  the document it still a signed copy of the\t award.\t  If
\nanything,  these  words show that document filed is  a\ttrue
\ncopy  of  the  award and as it bears the  signature  of\t the
\numpire,\t it is a signed copy thereof.  It may be added\tthat
\nthe  words “now I hereby reproduce a true copy of  the\tsaid
\naward which is as follows” which appear at the beginning  of
\nthe  document and which are signed by the umpire Sri  Dildar
\nHussain also in our opinion are sufficient to show that what
\nwas  produced  in court was a signed copy of  the  award  as
\nrequired by s. 14(2).\n<\/p>\n
In  this view of the matter, it is unnecessary\tto  consider
\nthe alternative argument raised on behalf of the  appellant.
\nWe  therefore allow the appeal and set aside the  orders  of
\nthe  courts  below and, holding that a signed  copy  of\t the
\naward  has been filed as required by s. 14(2),\tdirect\tthat
\nfurther proceedings will be taken in the matter as  required
\nby  law by the Subordinate Judge in whose court\t the  signed
\ncopy of the award was filed.  Costs of this Court will abide
\nthe final result.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     Appeal  allowed
\n848<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 526, 1967 SCR (1) 543 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/10\/1966 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. MITTER, G.K. CITATION: 1967 […]<\/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-132748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 - 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\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-02T10:36:16+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-02T10:36:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\"},\"wordCount\":1865,\"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\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-02T10:36:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 - 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\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-02T10:36:16+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-02T10:36:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966"},"wordCount":1865,"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\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966","name":"Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-02T10:36:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-construction-company-vs-union-of-india-on-12-october-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966"}]},{"@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\/132748","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=132748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}