{"id":221772,"date":"2001-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001"},"modified":"2016-03-24T22:10:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-24T16:40:04","slug":"star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: R Babu<\/div>\n
Bench: K.G.Balakrishna, S.R.Babu<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 9420-9423  of  1995\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTAR CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORT CO.  & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.G.Balakrishna, S.R.Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :\n<\/p>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      In  respect of a dispute arising out of a money  claim
\nmade  by  the appellants against respondent the\t matter\t was
\nreferred  to arbitration.  The reference was entered into in
\nJanuary\t 1983.\t The  arbitrators published their  award  on
\n15.2.1986  which,  after setting out certain  matters  which
\nwere preliminary in nature, inter alia, stated as under :-\n<\/p>\n
      We  J.C.\t Shah  and P.S.\t  Subramaniam,\tArbitrators
\nappointed  by the parties do hereby award and order that the
\nCompany\t (Indian  Cements Ltd.) do pay to Star\tConstruction
\nand  Transport Company Rs.  65,00,000 (in words Rupees Sixty
\nFive Lacs) in full and final settlement of the claim of Star
\nConstruction and Transport Company with interest at the rate
\nof  9(nine) per cent per annum from the date hereof;  and we
\nfurther\t award and declare that all the disputes referred to
\nby the parties under the claim made by the Star Construction
\nand  Transport Company and denied by the Indian Cements Ltd.
\nare  finally  disposed of by this Award and that no part  of
\nthe  claim  remains undetermined;  and we further award\t and
\norder  that  each party to bear its respective cost  of\t and
\nincidental to the arbitration proceeding including its share
\nof the amount of remuneration paid by it to the Arbitrators.\n<\/p>\n
      Made  this  15th day of February, 1986 at\t Bombay,  in
\ntoken\twhereof\t the  Arbitrators   have  subscribed   their
\nsignatures which are duly attested.\n<\/p>\n
      The award was filed in court on 15.4.1986 in O.P.\t No.
\n174 of 1986 under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940
\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act).  A decree was passed
\nin  terms  of  the  award under Section 17(1)  of  the\tAct.
\nThereafter, the respondent by its letter dated 8.8.1986 paid
\na  sum\tof Rs.\t49 lacs while withholding a sum of  Rs.\t  16
\nlacs  which  is stated to be money claims due to it in\tSuit
\nNo.   C.S.  246 of 1984 and C.S.  315 of 1984, although this
\nwas  disputed  by  the\tappellants  in\ttheir  letter  dated
\n5.8.1986.   It was stated therein that a Reconciliation\t of
\nAccount\t had  been furnished to the arbitrators showing\t an
\namount\tof about Rs.  16 lacs claimed to be due from them in
\nrespect\t of  which they had instituted the said\t two  suits.
\nThe   respondent  contended  that   the\t issues\t before\t the
\narbitrators  by way of several claims recorded in the  award
\nwhich  the arbitrators had settled did not take into account
\nmoneys\treceived  by the appellants from it as\tadvance\t and
\nmoneys paid by them on their behalf and which stand to their
\ncredit\tand accordingly credit should be given thereto.\t  In
\nthe  two  pending suits applications were filed under  Order
\nXXIII,\tRule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to record\t the
\nsatisfaction  of  the suit claim and dismiss the  suit\twith
\nother  incidental reliefs.  The learned single Judge of\t the
\nHigh  Court who was dealing with the suits passed a judgment
\non  17.4.1989  allowing the applications by holding that  it
\nwas  at the instance of the respondent that the claim in the
\nsuit  was brought in before the arbitrators on 8.2.1986\t and
\nelected to claim this set off immediately under the award to
\nbe  pronounced which was not opposed by the appellants\tand,
\ntherefore, under these circumstances, instead of an award of
\nRs.   81 lacs, an award of Rs.\t65 lacs was made.  On appeal
\nthe  Division Bench of the High Court reversed the  judgment
\nof  the\t learned Single Judge by holding that whether  there
\nwas  a settlement or not between the parties is a matter  to
\nbe decided as an issue in the suit and that the award per se
\ncannot\tbe considered as having resulted in a settlement  of
\nsuit claims.\n<\/p>\n
      The  principal  objection\t raised\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent  is\tthat the two applications filed under  Order
\nXXIII  Rue  3 C.P.C.  could not be maintained.\tIt was\talso
\ndisputed  that\tthe amounts claimed in the suits related  to
\nthe  agreement\tdated  27.7.1979 which was not\tthe  subject
\nmatter\tof  arbitration.  It was contended that the  subject
\nmatter\tof  the\t suits could not be the\t subject  matter  of
\narbitration  without  further  submission   by\tthe  parties
\nrequesting  the\t arbitrators to include the said matter\t and
\nfactually  there was no such submission.  The learned single
\nJudge  considered the case on the original statements  filed
\nby the respondent before the arbitrators.  The claim in suit
\nC.S.   No.   315  of 1984 was for recovery of a sum  of\t Rs.
\n19,75,821.60 together with interest on Rs.  14,55,625.08 and
\nthe  costs.   The claim in the plaint comprised of a sum  of
\nRs.   9,20,452.17 being the difference between the value  of
\nthe  assets taken over by the respondent and the amount\t was
\nstated to be due from the appellants to the respondent which
\nformed\tthe subject matter of the agreement dated  27.7.1979
\nand  a sum of Rs.  5,35,172.91 was said to be the  liability
\nof  the appellants on account of accrued and unavailed leave
\nof  the workmen employed by the appellants.  Other suit C.S.
\nNo.   246  of  1984 was filed for recovery of a sum  of\t Rs.
\n1,53,812.50  with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
\nplaint\tand for costs.\tThe claim of the respondent is\tthat
\nthis  amount represented the motor vehicles tax demanded  by
\nR.T.O.\t Salem\tfor the period from 1.4.1974  to  31.3.1982.
\nAccording  to the respondent, the amount was payable by\t the
\nappellants and the respondent was obliged to pay it when the
\npermits\t for  the  vehicles were transferred to it.   It  is
\nafter  the decree in terms of the award was passed that\t the
\nappellants   wrote  a  letter  to  the\trespondent   without
\nprejudice  referring to reconciliation statement of  account
\nfiled  by  the respondent before the arbitrators showing  an
\namount of Rs.  16 lacs claimed to be due from the appellants
\nand  proposing\tthat the respondent should pay a sum of\t Rs.
\n49  lacs being approximately the amount decreed in O.P.\t No.
\n174  of 1986 less the amount claimed by the respondent.\t The
\nappellants  also  undertook that on such payment being\tmade
\nthey  would not execute the decree till these two suits\t are
\ndisposed  of or the matter is settled in a manner acceptable
\nto  both  parties.   This  proposal   was  accepted  by\t the
\nrespondent  without prejudice and along with a letter  dated
\n8.8.1986 a cheque of Rs.  49 lacs was sent by the respondent
\nto the appellants.  In that letter it was made clear that in
\nrespect\t of amounts settled by the arbitrators the claims in
\nthe two suits were not included in the settlement arrived at
\nby  the arbitrators.  The appellants suggested that both the
\nparties or their advocates should obtain clarifications from
\nthe arbitrators as to whether or not the amount shown by the
\nrespondent  as due to it in the statement of  reconciliation
\nof  accounts filed before the arbitrators had been  adjusted
\nby  them  in  awarding\tthe  sum of  Rs.   65  lacs  to\t the
\nappellants.   The respondent did not agree to the suggestion
\nas  in\tits  opinion there was no scope\t for  obtaining\t any
\nclarification from the arbitrators as there was no ambiguity
\nwith  regard  to  the issue before them.  The stand  of\t the
\nrespondent  is clear that the arbitration did not pertain to
\nthe  agreement dated 27.7.1979 but only the matters  arising
\nunder  the agreement dated 20.8.1974.  An affidavit of\tShri
\nP.S.   Subramaniam  Iyer,  one of the  arbitrators  and\t two
\ndocuments  were\t filed\twhich  are   zerox  copies  of\t the
\nstatements filed by the respondent before the arbitrators on
\n8.2.1986.   As\tthe  original statements  filed\t before\t the
\narbitrators  were  also produced in the suit with all  other
\nrecords of the arbitrators, the learned single Judge did not
\nrely upon the affidavit of Shri P.S.  Subramaniam Iyer as he
\nhad  not  been examined before the court and he ignored\t the
\nsame.\tHowever, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the
\ncase  on  the basis of the original statements filed by\t the
\nrespondent  before the arbitrators which have been  produced
\nin  the court along with O.P.  No.  174 of 1986 and a letter
\ndated  1.2.1986 written by Shri S.  Padmanabhan, who was one
\nof the advocates appearing for the respondent, to the effect
\nthat  the respondent had worked out loss at Rs.\t 72.51\tlacs
\nsubject to adjustment of amounts payable and receivable.  It
\nwas  also  stated  that items marked 9B to 9E could  not  be
\naccepted  in working out the basis for any compromise.\t The
\nlearned\t  Judge\t proceeded  to\t analyse  the  statement  of
\nreconciliation\tof account which referred specifically to  a
\nsum  of Rs.  9,20,452.17 which is one of the amounts claimed
\nin  suit C.S.  No.  315 of 1984 and the other amount claimed
\nfor leave wages as Rs.\t5,35,000\/- which are set out in para
\n6  of the plaint in C.S.  No.  315 of 1984.  With  reference
\nto  the claim in C.S.  246 of 1984 the amount was split into
\ntwo  paras  in\tthe statement.\tA sum of Rs.   30,000\/-\t was
\nshown  as  paid to R.T.O.  towards differential tax and\t the
\nbalance\t of  Rs.  1,53,812.50 was shown as a separate  entry
\ntax  arrears  in  respect of vehicles taken  over  from\t the
\nappellants  paid on 28.6.1982.\tThus, the learned Judge came
\nto  the conclusion that the amount claimed in the two  suits
\nfound  place in the statement of reconciliation of  account.
\nThe  learned Judge thereafter referred to proceedings  dated
\n8.2.1986  in  which  the list of documents attached  to\t the
\noriginal   petition   submitted\t  during   the\t arbitration
\nproceedings  and the description given in the list  attached
\nto  the\t original  petition contained 21 items The  last  of
\nwhich  is  further  documents  of  claimant  and  respondent
\ncompromise  proposal  and  reconciliation   of\tAccounts  by
\nrespondent.   On this basis, the learned Judge found that it
\nwas  clear that the arbitrators have taken into account\t the
\nstatement   of\treconciliation\tof   account  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent  before  passing  the award.\t The  learned  Judge
\nproceeded  to  observe that the arbitrators would  not\thave
\ntaken  the statements on record but returned the same to the
\nrespective  parties  and proceeded without any reference  to
\nthe said statement and, therefore, the respondent was taking
\nundue advantage of the fact that the award is a non-speaking
\none.   The  learned Judge relying upon the decision of\tthis
\nCourt  in  Smt.\t Santa Sila Devi and another  v.   Dhirendra
\nNath  Sen and others, AIR 1963 SC 1677, held that the  award
\nfinally\t disposed of all the matters in difference  inasmuch
\nas  there  is an express declaration by the  arbitrators  to
\nthat  effect and no part of the claim remained undetermined.
\nThe  learned Judge also gave further findings that when\t the
\nappellants  had approached the arbitrators with a particular
\nclaim  and  the\t respondent in defence put forth  its  claim
\narising\t out of the same contract but crystalised to a large
\nextent\tby the agreement dated 27.7.1979 which, in fact, set
\noff  before  the  arbitrators  there was  no  necessity\t for
\nsubmission  of\ta fresh or independent reference, much\tless
\nthrough\t court\tand  relied upon the  following\t passage  in
\nRussell on Arbitration, 9th Edn, at pages 102 and 103 :-\n<\/p>\n
      It  has been often held that a submission by A and  B
\nof  the\t one  part and C of the other, of  all\tmatters\t in
\ndifference between them authorises the arbitrator to decide
\non  all matters that either of the two has against the third
\njointly\t or severally, such as an action by A alone  against
\nC,   on\t the  ground  that  the\t  words\t are  to  be   taken
\ndistributively.\t  This\tview  was adopted in  the  Court  of
\nExchequer  and\taffirmed  in   the  Exchequer  Chamber\tSix
\npartners  by two bonds submitted to arbitration all  matters
\nrelating  to  their  trade.  By the one bond three  of\tthem
\nbecame\tjointly\t and severally bound to the other  three  to
\nobey the award as to all matters between the partners or any
\nof  them.  But the second bond the latter three became bound
\nto  the\t former three in like manner.  It was held that\t the
\narbitrator  was\t authorised to award on a matter in  dispute
\nbetween\t two  co-  obligators only, on the ground  that\t the
\nreference  was\tof all matters between them or any  of\tthem
\nWinter v.  White (1819) IB & B 350.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t reference  of\tall matters in difference  gives  an
\narbitrator  power over all matters down to the period of the
\nsubmission,   but  does\t not   except  under  very   special
\ncircumstances,\tenable him to award on future and contingent
\nclaims,\t or  to\t give damages in respect  of  money  demands
\nbecoming  due  after  the  date of  the\t submission,  though
\npursuant  to  an  agreement made previous to it,  or  indeed
\nrespecting  any\t subjects  of\tdispute\t arising  after\t the
\nreference.\n<\/p>\n
      Even  if the submission be of all differences and\t of
\nanything  in anywise relating thereto these latter words do
\nnot  extend  the power of the arbitrators to  matters  which
\nthough relating to the existing differences, arise after the
\ndate of the submission nor do they authorise the calculation
\nand awarding of interest subsequent to that date.\n<\/p>\n
      The  parties  may,  however, if they please  give\t the
\narbitrator  power  to determine on contingent claims, or  on
\nmatters\t in dispute or demands arising after the date of the
\nsubmission and this course has often been perused.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Judge, therefore, held that it was open to
\nthe  arbitrators to arbitrate the same.\t Alternatively,\t the
\nlearned\t Judge proceeded to state that even if the reference
\nwas limited, it was open to the parties to enlarge the scope
\nthereof\t as  it\t was not a reference made by a\tcourt.\t The
\nstatements  in\twriting\t filed\tby the\tparties\t before\t the
\narbitrators  were  sufficient to serve the purpose  and\t the
\nabsence of signature of any representative of the respondent
\ndoes not at all matter.\t The learned Judge also proceeded to
\nconsider  that\tthe respondent had elected to claim set\t off
\nbefore\tthe  arbitrators and having chosen to work out\tthat
\nremedy\tit is not open to the respondent to pursue the\tsame
\nby  ignoring  the  award.  It was held that  the  respondent
\nhaving\tobtained  the benefit under the award,\tnamely,\t the
\nadjustment of the amounts due from the appellants as against
\nthe  amounts found payable to the appellants, it is not open
\nto  the respondent to challenge the validity of the award in
\nthe  proceedings,  particularly when the appellants had\t not
\nraised\tany objection to a decree being passed by the  court
\nin  terms  of  the  award.  Appeals were  filed\t before\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t of the High Court by the respondent,  which
\nwere  allowed  relegating  the\tparties to  thrash  out\t the
\nquestion  whether  there is a settlement or not between\t the
\nparties\t is  a matter to be decided as an issue in the\tsuit
\nand  that  the award per se cannot be considered  as  having
\nresulted  in a settlement of the suit claim.  These  appeals
\nare directed against that order of the Division Bench of the
\nHigh  Court.  Shri F.S.Nariman, learned senior Advocate\t for
\nthe appellants, submitted that if the conclusion is that the
\naward  has  resulted in a settlement of the suit claim,\t the
\ncourt  ought  to  have\tgiven a finding\t that  there  was  a
\nsettlement  between the parties and hence nothing remains in
\nthe suit to be decided.\t He focussed his attention mostly to
\nthe  question that the award on the face of it indicates the
\nsettlement  of the suit claim.\tTo support this proposition,
\nhe  heavily  relied upon the view expressed by\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge  while disposing of the suits on the basis  of
\nthe  applications  filed  under Order XXIII, Rule 3  CPC  to
\nwhich  we have made elaborate reference.  He submitted\tthat
\nthe  fact is that the reference to the arbitration was\tmade
\nin  pursuance  of  clause  24 of the  agreement\t dated\t20th
\nAugust, 1974 as a private reference validly made without the
\nintervention  of  the court.  He submits that clause  24  is
\nvery  wide  in\tits  terms  to\tinclude\t all  questions\t  of
\ndifference whatsoever touching upon the agreement or subject
\nmatter\tthereof or arising out of or in relation thereto and
\nwhether\t as  to construction of the agreement or  otherwise.
\nWhen  the  appellants  approached  the\tarbitration  with  a
\nparticular  claim,  the\t respondent in defence\tthereto\t put
\nforward\t its  claim  arising out of the\t same  contract\t but
\ncrystallised  to  a  large  extent by  the  agreement  dated
\n27.7.1979.   The later agreement between the parties emerged
\nonly out of the earlier contract which was the foundation of
\nthe transaction between the parties.  The respondent pleaded
\nonly  a\t set off or a counter-claim before  the\t arbitrators
\nwhile  defending  the claim put forward by  the\t appellants.
\nThus  there  was no necessity for submission of a  fresh  or
\nindependent  reference\tand much less through a Court.\t The
\nfallacy in this approach is that when the reference was made
\nin  respect  of\t the disputes arising out of  the  agreement
\ndated  20.8.1974  and  those disputes had to be\t settled  no
\nclaim by way of set off or a counter-claim was raised by the
\nrespondent  herein.   It  is only at the last stage  of\t the
\nproceedings  a\treconciliation statement is stated  to\thave
\nbeen  filed  which,  it is said, has  reference\t to  certain
\nclaims\tmade in the two suits and those claims are stated to
\nhave been taken into consideration in the non-speaking award
\nin  deciding  the claims of the parties by the\tarbitrators.
\nIn  the case of a non-speaking award, trite to say that\t the
\nmental process of the arbitrators in reaching the conclusion
\ncannot\tbe  gone  into\tor  examined as\t the  same  are\t not
\ndisclosed  in the award.  Therefore, to glean into the minds
\nof  the\t arbitrators to find out whether they  included\t the
\nclaims\tstated\tto  have  been made  in\t the  reconciliation
\nstatement  is  a  very torturous process, not an  easy\tone,
\nhazarded  with too many difficulties.  To get out of such  a
\nquagmire Shri Nariman very astutely contended that there was
\na  reference  to  the documents filed in the  case  and\t the
\nreconciliation statement is one such which was also produced
\nbefore\tthe  court when the award was filed for passing\t the
\ndecree\tin terms thereof which would indicate that this\t was
\npresent\t to the minds of the arbitrators.  Whether it is  so
\nor not can only be imagined and not definitely inferred from
\nthe facts.  Therefore, this line of reasoning adopted by the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\tdoes  not appeal to us\tnor  are  we
\nimpressed  with the alternative view taken by him that\teven
\nassuming  that\tthe  scope  of the  original  reference\t was
\nlimited,  it  was open to both parties to enlarge  the\tsame
\nbefore\tthe arbitrators as it was not a reference made by  a
\ncourt.\t Even if it were so, there is no way of finding\t out
\nthe  rationale\ton which the arbitrators passed\t the  award.
\nThough it may have been permissible to refer such a dispute,
\nwhether\t in fact done so, is the question.  That is a matter
\nwhich  is  under serious dispute between the parties.\tShri
\nNariman pointed out the conflict in decisions in relation to
\nthe  question whether the matters in difference in a pending
\nsuit can be referred to the arbitration without the order of
\nthe  court  and when the same would result in settlement  of
\nclaim in the suit.  However, that aspect also does not arise
\nfor  consideration at this stage of the proceedings.  We may
\nalso  notice  that the learned Single Judge is of  the\tview
\nthat  the  respondent  having taken advantage of  the  award
\nwhich,\tin  fact, took note of the reconciliation  statement
\nthey  are  estopped  from  contending\tthat  there  is\t  no
\nsignificance   of  the\tsuit   claims  in  the\t arbitration
\nproceedings.   Again,  this  view proceeds on the  basis  of
\naward  being  made after taking note of\t the  reconciliation
\nstatement,  which  conclusion  we  have pointed\t out  to  be
\nslippery.   Hence  this\t aspect\t also does  not\t assist\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this\tcase,  applications are\t filed\tunder  Order
\nXXIII,\tRule  3 CPC.  This rule is a provision for making  a
\ndecree\ton  any lawful agreement or compromise\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t during\t the pendency of the suit by which claim  is
\nsatisfied  or  adjusted.   The\t agreement,  compromise\t  or
\nsatisfaction  may relate to the whole of the suit or part of
\nthe  suit or it may also include matters beyond the  subject
\nmatter\tof the suit.  But Rule 3 clearly envisages a  decree
\nbeing  passed  in  respect of part of subject  matter  on  a
\ncompromise.   Whether  in fact there has been compromise  or
\nadjustment  of the suit claim or any part thereof is  itself
\nput  in\t dispute  in  this   case.   Unless  it\t is  clearly
\nestablished  that such accord or compromise has been entered
\ninto  between the parties, the powers under Order XXIII Rule
\n3 CPC could not be exercised.  The respondents case is that
\nthe claim made in the suit were never before the arbitrators
\nin   any  form\tand  even   the\t figures  mentioned  in\t the
\nreconciliation\tstatement  also do not pertain to  the\tsuit
\nclaim and the scope of reference to the arbitrators does not
\nenable\tthem to make an award on that aspect of the  matter.
\nThose objections have to be dealt with appropriately on full
\ntrial.\tThat is the course now adopted by the Division Bench
\nof  the\t High  Court.  Although many  other  arguments\twere
\naddressed  before  us  as to the scope\tof  the\t proceedings
\nbefore an arbitrator as to how in the course of arbitration,
\nadditional  claims  can\t be  raised   before  them  and\t  an
\nadjudication  thereof,\tif results, an award is\t binding  on
\nparties.   These aspects also do not help the appellants  in
\nany manner for we find that there must be factual foundation
\nfor  those claims and established in the course of a  trial.
\nUninfluenced  by  the  views of the Division Bench  we\thave
\nexamined  the correctness of the order of the learned Single
\nJudge  made  in\t the two suits on applications\tfiled  under
\nOrder  XXIII  Rule 3 CPC and we are clearly of\tthe  opinion
\nthat  the  order  of  the learned  Single  Judge  cannot  be
\nsustained.   The  Division Bench of the High Court  has\t not
\nshut  out  the\tcase put forth by the  appellants  but\tonly
\nrelegated the parties to work out their respective rights in
\nan  appropriate manner in the course of a suit.\t  Therefore,
\nwe  find no merit in these appeals and the same shall  stand
\ndismissed.  The parties shall bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 Author: R Babu Bench: K.G.Balakrishna, S.R.Babu CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9420-9423 of 1995 PETITIONER: STAR CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORT CO. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/02\/2001 BENCH: K.G.Balakrishna, S.R.Babu JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA […]<\/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-221772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nStar Construction & Transport Co. ... vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 - 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\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Star Construction & Transport Co. ... vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-24T16:40:04+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T16:40:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3691,\"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\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\",\"name\":\"Star Construction & Transport Co. ... vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T16:40:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Star Construction & Transport Co. ... vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 - 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\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Star Construction & Transport Co. ... vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-24T16:40:04+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T16:40:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001"},"wordCount":3691,"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\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001","name":"Star Construction & Transport Co. ... vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T16:40:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/star-construction-transport-co-vs-the-india-cements-limited-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Star Construction & Transport Co. … vs The India Cements Limited on 13 February, 2001"}]},{"@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\/221772","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=221772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}