{"id":223891,"date":"2009-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-03T16:13:05","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T10:43:05","slug":"union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                                       Reportable\n\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3632 OF 2007\n\n\n\nUNION OF INDIA                                   ....... APPELLANT (s)\n\nVs.\n\nM\/S. SINGH BUILDERS SYNDICATE             ....... RESPONDENT (s)\n\n\n\n\n                              O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.Raveendran, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       The appellant challenges the order of the Delhi High<\/p>\n
Court dated 27.3.2006 appointing a Retired Judge of the<\/p>\n
High   Court   as   sole   Arbitrator   to   decide   the   disputes<\/p>\n
arising in respect of a construction contract between the<\/p>\n
Northern Railways (appellant) and the respondent.<\/p>\n
2.     The appellant contends the appointment of arbitrators<\/p>\n
should be only in accordance with Clause 64 of the general<\/p>\n
terms and conditions contract which requires two serving<\/p>\n
Gazetted Railway officers of equal status being appointed
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
as Arbitrators, one by the contractor from a panel made<\/p>\n
available by the General Manager of Northern Railways and<\/p>\n
the other by the Northern Railways, and the two arbitrators<\/p>\n
so appointed, in turn appointing an Umpire.<\/p>\n
3.    It   is    true     that   the       Arbitral        Tribunal    should     be<\/p>\n
constituted      in     the   manner   laid     down       in   the   Arbitration<\/p>\n
agreement. Provisions for arbitration in contracts entered<\/p>\n
by    governments,        statutory        authorities,         and   government<\/p>\n
companies, invariably require that the Arbitrators should<\/p>\n
be their own serving officers. Such a provision has to be<\/p>\n
given effect, subject to requirements of independence and<\/p>\n
impartiality. But there can be exceptions and this case<\/p>\n
which has a chequered history, falls under such exceptions.<\/p>\n
4.    Let us refer to the facts briefly. The respondent made<\/p>\n
a    request     for    arbitration        in   the    year      1999.    As     the<\/p>\n
appellant failed to take necessary steps as mandated by<\/p>\n
clause     64,    the    respondent        filed      an    application        under<\/p>\n
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/p>\n
(`Act’ for short) in AA No. 202\/2000. In pursuance of the<\/p>\n
directions issued on 11.11.2002 by the designate of the<\/p>\n
Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, an Arbitral Tribunal<\/p>\n
was constituted in terms of clause 64, consisting of Shri
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
A.K.    Mishra,       (Chief        Engineer\/TPS)           nominated     by     the<\/p>\n
contractor, Shri S.P. Virdi (Dy.F.A. & CEO) nominated by<\/p>\n
the appellant, and Shri H.K. Jaggi (Chief Bridge Engineer)<\/p>\n
as    the   Umpire.        But    even     before     the     proceedings       could<\/p>\n
commence before the Arbitral Tribunal, Shri A.K. Mishra,<\/p>\n
one of the Arbitrators, was transferred and consequently he<\/p>\n
tendered resignation in May, 2004. As the appellant failed<\/p>\n
to provide a fresh panel to enable the respondent to make a<\/p>\n
fresh nomination, the respondent again approached the High<\/p>\n
Court by filing AA No.240\/2004.                     A fresh panel was made<\/p>\n
available    thereafter           from    which   the   respondent       nominated<\/p>\n
Shri    Ashok      Gupta     as    its     Arbitrator.        Hardly    after     one<\/p>\n
sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal, Shri Ashok Gupta was also<\/p>\n
transferred and he tendered his resignation on 21.7.2005.<\/p>\n
As appellant again failed to take steps for filling the<\/p>\n
vacancy,     the     respondent          approached     the     Court    again    by<\/p>\n
filing IA No. 6511\/2005 in AA 240\/2004.                      In pursuance of an<\/p>\n
order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the High Court, again a<\/p>\n
panel was made available and the respondent made its choice<\/p>\n
on 9.9.2005.        As no steps were taken in pursuance of it by<\/p>\n
the    appellant,          the     respondent       sent       a   reminder       on<\/p>\n
14.10.2005.        There was no response. In this background, the<\/p>\n
respondent again approached the High Court on 10.11.2005 in<\/p>\n
Arb. Petn. No. 256\/2005 for appointment of an independent
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
sole arbitrator.         During the pendency of the said petition,<\/p>\n
the General Manager of Northern Railways appointed Sri Ved<\/p>\n
Pal as the contractor’s nominee arbitrator on 22.11.2005.<\/p>\n
5.     The High Court was of the view that no useful purpose<\/p>\n
will    be    served    by     again    reconstituting            a     Three    Member<\/p>\n
Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with clause 64.                                The High<\/p>\n
Court found that the matter has been pending from 1999 when<\/p>\n
the    respondent      first    made    the     request          for    reference     to<\/p>\n
Arbitration and that the cumbersome process of constituting<\/p>\n
an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Arbitration agreement<\/p>\n
and the delays on the part of Railways in complying with<\/p>\n
the provisions of the arbitration agreement, led to the<\/p>\n
arbitration becoming virtually a non-starter.                              Therefore,<\/p>\n
the    High    Court     allowed       the    petition       on        27.3.2006     and<\/p>\n
appointed      Justice    Jaspal       Singh,       a    retired       Judge    of   the<\/p>\n
Delhi High Court as the arbitrator. Justice Jaspal Singh<\/p>\n
recused himself and the High Court on 19.7.2006, appointed<\/p>\n
Justice R.C. Chopra, another retired Judge of the Delhi<\/p>\n
High Court as the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     The said order is challenged in this appeal by special<\/p>\n
leave.    On   6.11.2006,        this       Court       stayed    the    arbitration<\/p>\n
proceedings before the sole Arbitrator. The question that
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is<\/p>\n
whether the appointment of a the retired Judge of the High<\/p>\n
Court   as     sole     Arbitrator          should     be     set    aside     and    an<\/p>\n
Arbitral Tribunal should again be constituted in the manner<\/p>\n
provided in terms of clause 64.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   Dealing         with     a     matter        arising     from    the    old     Act<\/p>\n
(Arbitration Act, 1940), this Court, in Union of India v.<\/p>\n
M.P.Gupta<\/a> [2004 (10) SCC 504], held that appointment of a<\/p>\n
retired      Judge    as     sole    Arbitrator        contrary       to    clause    64<\/p>\n
(which requiring            serving    Gazetted        Railway       Officers      being<\/p>\n
appointed) was impermissible. The position after the new<\/p>\n
Act came into force, is different, as explained by this<\/p>\n
Court     in   Northern           Railway        Administration,       Ministry      of<\/p>\n
Railway, New Delhi v. Patel Engineering Company Ltd.<\/a> [2008<\/p>\n
(11) SCALE 500].             This Court held that the appointment of<\/p>\n
arbitrator\/s         named    in     the        arbitration    agreement       is    not<\/p>\n
mandatory or a must, but the emphasis should be on the<\/p>\n
terms   of     the    arbitration          agreement        being    adhered    and\/or<\/p>\n
given effect, as closely as possible. It was further held<\/p>\n
that the Chief Justice or his designate should first ensure<\/p>\n
that the remedies provided under the arbitration agreement<\/p>\n
are exhausted, but at the same time also ensure that the<\/p>\n
twin requirements of sub-section (8) of section 11 of the
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
Act are kept in view. This would mean that invariably the<\/p>\n
court should first appoint the Arbitrators in the manner<\/p>\n
provided for in the arbitration agreement. But where the<\/p>\n
independence           and        impartiality              of         the      Arbitrator\/s<\/p>\n
appointed\/nominated in terms of the arbitration agreement<\/p>\n
is in doubt, or where the Arbitral Tribunal appointed in<\/p>\n
the manner provided in the arbitration agreement has not<\/p>\n
functioned        and     it        becomes         necessary            to     make     fresh<\/p>\n
appointment,       the       Chief      Justice       or     his       designate        is   not<\/p>\n
powerless to make appropriate alternative arrangements to<\/p>\n
give effect to the provision for arbitration.<\/p>\n
8.   The     object          of     the      alternative              dispute        resolution<\/p>\n
process of arbitration is to have expeditious and effective<\/p>\n
disposal     of    the        disputes            through        a     private       forum    of<\/p>\n
parties’   choice.             If      the    Arbitral       Tribunal           consists      of<\/p>\n
serving officers of one of the parties to the dispute, as<\/p>\n
members in terms of the arbitration agreement, and such<\/p>\n
Tribunal is made non-functional on account of the action or<\/p>\n
inaction     or    delay          of    such        party,           either     by    frequent<\/p>\n
transfers of such members of the Arbitral Tribunal or by<\/p>\n
failing    to      take        steps         expeditiously              to     replace       the<\/p>\n
arbitrators       in    terms          of    the    Arbitration              Agreement,      the<\/p>\n
Chief Justice or his designate, required to exercise power
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
under     section       11   of     the        Act,     can    step       in     and    pass<\/p>\n
appropriate orders. We fail to understand why the General<\/p>\n
Manager     of       the     Railways          repeatedly          furnished           panels<\/p>\n
containing names of officers who were due for transfer in<\/p>\n
the near future.              We are conscious of the fact that a<\/p>\n
serving officer is transferred on account of exigencies of<\/p>\n
service and transfer policy of the employer and that merely<\/p>\n
because     an       employee       is    appointed           as    arbitrator,          his<\/p>\n
transfer cannot be avoided or postponed.                                But an effort<\/p>\n
should be made to ensure that officers who are likely to<\/p>\n
remain     in    a    particular          place       are     alone       appointed       as<\/p>\n
Arbitrators and that the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of<\/p>\n
serving     officers,           decides         the      matter         expeditiously.<\/p>\n
Constituting Arbitral Tribunals with serving officers from<\/p>\n
different far away places should be avoided. There can be<\/p>\n
no hard and fast rule, but there should be a conscious<\/p>\n
effort    to     ensure      that    Arbitral          Tribunal       is       constituted<\/p>\n
promptly and arbitration does not drag on for years and<\/p>\n
decades.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.   As noticed above, the matter has now been pending for<\/p>\n
nearly     ten    years      from        the     date       when    the        demand    for<\/p>\n
arbitration       was      first    made       with     virtually         no     progress.<\/p>\n
Having    regard      to     the    passage       of     time,     if      the    Arbitral
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
Tribunal has to be reconstituted in terms of clause 64,<\/p>\n
there may be a need to change even the other two members of<\/p>\n
the   Tribunal.         The    delays         and    frequent        changes        in     the<\/p>\n
Arbitral       Tribunal       make    a       mockery         of    the     process        of<\/p>\n
arbitration.        Having regard to this factual background, we<\/p>\n
are of the view that the appointment of a retired Judge of<\/p>\n
the Delhi High Court as sole Arbitrator does not call for<\/p>\n
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136<\/p>\n
of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Another aspect referred to by the appellant, however<\/p>\n
requires serious consideration. When the arbitration is by<\/p>\n
a   Tribunal      consisting     of       serving        officers,         the      cost   of<\/p>\n
arbitration is very low. On the other hand, the cost of<\/p>\n
arbitration can be high if the Arbitral Tribunal consists<\/p>\n
of retired Judge\/s. When a retired Judge is appointed as<\/p>\n
Arbitrator in place of serving officers, the government is<\/p>\n
forced    to     bear   the    high    cost         of   Arbitration           by   way    of<\/p>\n
private arbitrator’s fee even though it had not consented<\/p>\n
for   the      appointment       of    such         non-technical           non-serving<\/p>\n
persons     as    Arbitrator\/s.        There        is    no       doubt   a     prevalent<\/p>\n
opinion that the cost of arbitration becomes very high in<\/p>\n
many cases where retired Judge\/s are Arbitrators. The large<\/p>\n
number    of     sittings     and     charging           of   very    high       fees      per
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
sitting, with several add-ons, without any ceiling, have<\/p>\n
many a time resulted in the cost of arbitration approaching<\/p>\n
or even exceeding the amount involved in the dispute or the<\/p>\n
amount of the award. When an arbitrator is appointed by a<\/p>\n
court without indicating fees, either both parties or at<\/p>\n
least one party is at a disadvantage. Firstly, the parties<\/p>\n
feel constrained to agree to whatever fees is suggested by<\/p>\n
the   Arbitrator,        even     if    it     is     high      or     beyond     their<\/p>\n
capacity.       Secondly,    if    a        high    fee    is     claimed       by    the<\/p>\n
Arbitrator and one party agrees to pay such fee, the other<\/p>\n
party, who is unable to afford such fee or reluctant to pay<\/p>\n
such high fee, is put to an embarrassing position. He will<\/p>\n
not   be    in    a    position        to    express       his       reservation       or<\/p>\n
objection to the high fee, owing to an apprehension that<\/p>\n
refusal    by    him    to   agree      for    the    fee       suggested        by   the<\/p>\n
arbitrator,      may    prejudice       his    case       or    create    a   bias     in<\/p>\n
favour of the other party who readily agreed to pay the<\/p>\n
high fee. It is necessary to find an urgent solution for<\/p>\n
this problem to save arbitration from the arbitration cost.<\/p>\n
Institutional arbitration has provided a solution as the<\/p>\n
Arbitrators’          fees   is    not        fixed       by     the     Arbitrators<\/p>\n
themselves on case to case basis, but is governed by a<\/p>\n
uniform    rate       prescribed       by    the    institution          under    whose<\/p>\n
aegis the Arbitration is held. Another solution is for the
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
court   to    fix    the       fees    at        the    time      of   appointing     the<\/p>\n
arbitrator, with the consent of parties, if necessary in<\/p>\n
consultation with the arbitrator concerned. Third is for<\/p>\n
the retired Judges offering to serve as Arbitrators, to<\/p>\n
indicate     their       fee     structure             to   the    Registry     of    the<\/p>\n
respective High Court so that the parties will have the<\/p>\n
choice of selecting an Arbitrator whose fees are in their<\/p>\n
`range’ having regard to the stakes involved. What is found<\/p>\n
to be objectionable is parties being forced to go to an<\/p>\n
arbitrator appointed by the court and then being forced to<\/p>\n
agree for a fee fixed by such Arbitrator. It is unfortunate<\/p>\n
that delays, high cost, frequent and sometimes unwarranted<\/p>\n
judicial     interruptions        at        different        stages     are   seriously<\/p>\n
hampering the growth of arbitration as an effective dispute<\/p>\n
resolution process. Delay and high cost are two areas where<\/p>\n
the Arbitrators by self regulation can bring about marked<\/p>\n
improvement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   We find that a provision for serving officers of one<\/p>\n
party      being     appointed              as     arbitrator\/s          brings       out<\/p>\n
considerable resistance from the other party, when disputes<\/p>\n
arise. Having regard to the emphasis on independence and<\/p>\n
impartiality        in     the        new        Act,       government,       statutory<\/p>\n
authorities        and    government             companies         should     think    of
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
phasing   out   arbitration   clauses   providing   for   serving<\/p>\n
officers and encourage professionalism in arbitration.<\/p>\n
12.   As far as this case is concerned, we do not propose to<\/p>\n
issue any directions in regard to the fees, as the High<\/p>\n
Court has fixed the fee at Rs.10,000\/- per hearing subject<\/p>\n
to a maximum of Rs.150,000\/- plus clerkage, to be shared<\/p>\n
equally by the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                              _________________J
\n                                              [R. V. Raveendran]<\/p>\n
                                              _________________J
\n                                               [H.L. Dattu]
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
February 26, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Dattu Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3632 OF 2007 UNION OF INDIA ……. APPELLANT (s) Vs. M\/S. SINGH BUILDERS SYNDICATE ……. RESPONDENT (s) O R […]<\/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-223891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-03T10:43:05+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T10:43:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2059,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T10:43:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M\\\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-03T10:43:05+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T10:43:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009"},"wordCount":2059,"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\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009","name":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T10:43:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ms-singh-builders-syndicate-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs M\/S. Singh Builders Syndicate on 26 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/223891","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=223891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}