{"id":267938,"date":"2010-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-27T18:37:56","modified_gmt":"2015-11-27T13:07:56","slug":"satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                                    M. A. No. 87 of 1998 ( R)\n                                            With\n                                    M. A. No. 62 of 1998\n                                            ----------\nAgainst the judgment and order dated 22.12.1997 passed by Sri Sheo Murat Ram, Sub-\nJudge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Arbitration Case No. 13 of 1980.\n                                            ----------\nSatrughan Prasad Singh..................Appellant ( M. A. No. 87\/98 ( R)\n                     -Versus-\n1. M\/s. Damodar Valley Corporation.\n2. Chairman.\n3. Shri S. K Ghosh.\n4. Shri J.P.Yadav.\n5. Md. Azam.                 ...........Respondents.\n\n   1.  M\/s. Damodar Valley Corporation....Appellants ( M.A. No. 62\/98( R)\n   2.  The Deputy Secretary.\n   3.  Sr. Divisional Engineer.\n   4.  Chairman.\n   5.  Sri J. P. Yadav.\n                       -Versus-\nSatrughan Prasad Singh........................Plaintiff\n                                          --\n       For the Appellants         : Mr. A. K. Sahani,Adv. ( M.A.No.87\/98)\n       For the Respondents-DVC : M\/s. S.K.Ughal &amp; T.Kabiraj, Advs.\n                                          ---\n       For the Appellants-DVC     : M\/s. S.K.Ughal and T.Kabiraj (M.A.No.62\/98)\n       For the Plaintiff          : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv.\n                                          ---\n\n                               PRESENT\n                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR\nRESERVED ON 17.4.2010               PRONOUNCED ON                              5 \/5 \/2010\n\n\nPradeep Kumar,J,             The Miscellaneous appeal no. 87 of 1998, which has been\n              preferred by appellant, Satrughan Prasad Singh and second Miscellaneous\n              Appeal No. 62 of 1998, which has been preferred by the appellants M\/s.\n              Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; others. The opposite party-Company against\n              whom the claim was preferred by the appellant, Satrughan Prasad Singh.\n              2.              Both the appeals have been filed against the judgment and\n              order dated 22.12.1997 passed by Sri Sheo Murat Ram, Sub-Judge-II,\n              Bermo at Tenughat in Arbitration Case No. 13 of 1980, by which\n              judgment the learned Subordinate Judge in the objection petition filed\n              under <a href=\"\/doc\/1503578\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 30<\/a> of the Arbitration Act by the appellant, Satrughan Prasad\n              Singh was dismissed and the Court while dismissing the application found\n              the application filed by the D.V.C challenging the exaggerated amount\n              given by the Arbitrator correct and reduced the same to the original claim\n              of Rs. 62,361\/-.\n              3.             It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant,\n              Satrughan Prasad Singh that the award is bad since no reasons have been\n              given, but the trial court without considering the same, confirmed the\n              award, but illegally amended the award from Rs. 5,12,000\/- to\n              Rs.62,361\/-, which was beyond his power. Learned counsel for the\n                                       -2-\nappellant has relied in a judgment reported in (2009)10 S.C.C. page 259\nin the case of Som Datt Builders-Vs.-State of Kerala.\n4.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-\nDVC, who have preferred counter appeal submitted that the respondents\nchallenged the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has traveled\nbeyond the reference in awarding Rs. 5,12,000\/-, which was never claimed\nby the applicant and as such the learned trial court has rightly amended the\naward.\n5.             After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going\nthrough the record, I find that the appellant-opposite party.1-Company i.e\nDamodar Valley Corporation, which is a statutory body established by an\nact of Parliament (Act no. XIV of 1948) and other appellants-opposite\nparties are its officers ( in M.A.No. 62 of 1998), invited a tender for\nremodelling of permanent shop and store building for conversion into a\ncanteen at CTPC. The appellants-opposite parties after due procedure,\nissued order in favour of the plaintiff-Contractor, Satrughan Prasad Singh\nfor the said construction work vide its letter dated 18.4.1975.\nSubsequently, just after two months of the issuance of the said order,\nbecause the Damodar Valley Corporation Management to decide to\nabandon the said work-programme of the said site. The appellants-D.V.C.\ninformed the plaintiff-contractor, Shri Satrughan Prasad Singh by its letter\ndated 11.6.1975, which is marked as Annexure-'3' to the memo of appeal.\nIt is further stated that the information given to the plaintiff-contractor\nwas, in accordance with the terms of agreement as per Clause 12 of the\nagreement, which is marked as Annexure-'4' filed with the memo of\nappeal of the appellant-DVC wherein it was written that if the work is\nabandoned and notice is given in writing in time, the Contractor shall have\nno claim to any payment or compensation. However, the Contractor on\nreceipt of the letter, in reply, sent a letter claiming a compensation of Rs.\n10,321\/- by its letter dated 14.8.1975, which is marked as Annexure-5 to\nthe memo of appeal.\n6.             Since, the work had not started and the Contractor had only\ndeposited the security money amounting to Rs. 676\/-, the same was\nrefunded to the contractor by letter dated 6th June, 1978. Thereafter, the\nfinal measurement was done made by the contractor and as per the\nmeasurement made by the Contractor, a bill was raised for the amount of\nRs. 2762.61 paise. Subsequently, the plaintiff-Contractor filed a case\nbefore Sub-Judge, Bermo at Tenughat being Arbitration Title Suit No. 13\nof 1980 wherein with consent of the parties, Sri Kameshwar Mishra,\nAdvocate was appointed as an Arbitrator and the matter was referred to\n                                 -3-\nhim for arbitration and it appears that he submitted the award dated\n6.10.97<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">, which was challenged by both the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">7.              Since, both the parties challenged the award and filed their<br \/>\nobjections under <a href=\"\/doc\/1503578\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 30<\/a> of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is important to<br \/>\nnote that while passing the award the learned Arbitrator gave a findings,<br \/>\nwhich are as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                        &#8221; I Kameshwar Mishra, Advocate, Bermo at<br \/>\n                Tenughat, sole Arbitrator issued notices upon the parties.<br \/>\n                Both the parties took part in the hearing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                        I have gone through the reference made before<br \/>\n                me. Heard both the parties on each and every matter<br \/>\n                under reference, examined and considered all the<br \/>\n                statements and documents placed before me.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>                                AND<br \/>\n                        Whereas I, (Kameshwar Mishra, sole Arbitrator)<br \/>\n                do hereby make and publish this final award in writing<br \/>\n                with regard to the matter referred to me as under: which<br \/>\n                shall meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>                        a) The defendant\/opposite party\/objector-DVC<br \/>\n                shall pay a lump sum rupees 5,12,000\/- to the plaintiff-<br \/>\n                claimant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>                        The defendants\/opposite party shall pay simple<br \/>\n                interest @ 12% per annum from 25.2.1980 the date of<br \/>\n                institution of the case till actual payment to the<br \/>\n                plaintiff\/claimant&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_2\">8.      The first objection, which has been raised by the claimant-<br \/>\nappellant is that the award was not a speaking award. In that respect it is<br \/>\nnow important to consider as to whether Arbitrator is required in law to<br \/>\ngive a reasoned award or not?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">9.      In the case of Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth &amp; ors.-Vs.-Chintamanrao<br \/>\nBalaji &amp; ors. reported in A.I.R.1965 Supreme Court 214, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>        &#8221; It is not open to the court to speculate, where no reasons are given by<br \/>\n        the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his<br \/>\n        conclusion. On the assumption that the arbitrator must have arrived at<br \/>\n        his conclusion by a certain process of reasoning; the court cannot<br \/>\n        proceed to determine whether the conclusion is right or wrong. It is not<br \/>\n        open to the Court to attempt to probe the mental process by which the<br \/>\n        arbitrator has reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the<br \/>\n        terms of his award.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_4\">10.     In the case of Bijendra Nath Srivastava(Dead)-Vs.-Vijaynath<br \/>\nSrivastava through L.Rs.,-Vs.-Mayank Srivastava &amp; ors. reported in A.I.R.<br \/>\n1994 Supreme Court 2562, it was observed in para 46 that it was permissible to<br \/>\narbitrator to settle the consolidated lump sum award.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">11.    In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the Arbitrator was not required<br \/>\nto give any reasoning for coming to the finding as to how he has allowed a sum<br \/>\nof Rs. 5,12,000\/- in favour of the claimant-contractor. The learned trial<br \/>\ncourt also while discussing the law on the point referred to various<br \/>\njudgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 and after<br \/>\nconsidering the aforesaid judgments, the learned trial court came to the<br \/>\nfollowing conclusions in para 16 of its judgment that &#8220;from the<br \/>\npropositions of law enunciated in the decision referred to supra it is<br \/>\nmanifestly clear that the Arbitrator is the sole and final judge of the<br \/>\ndispute between the parties referred to him and his award is final,<br \/>\nconclusive and binding between them. It is also obligatory on the part of<br \/>\nthe Arbitrator to give a reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him. The<br \/>\nCourt has got limited scope to interfere with the award. The award of an<br \/>\nArbitrator can only be set aside on the grounds enunciated under <a href=\"\/doc\/862520\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section<br \/>\n13<\/a> of the Arbitration Act&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">               <a href=\"\/doc\/1503578\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 30<\/a> of the Arbitration Act as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">               &#8220;An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of<br \/>\n               the following grounds, namely, (a) that an Arbitrator or<br \/>\n               umpire has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings (b)<br \/>\n               that an award has been made after the issue of an order by<br \/>\n               the court superceding the arbitration or after arbitration<br \/>\n               proceedings have become invalid under <a href=\"\/doc\/1912867\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 35<\/a>; (c) that<br \/>\n               an award has been improperly procured or its otherwise<br \/>\n               invalid&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">12.            As far as the appellant&#8217;s case was objection is concerned,<br \/>\nthe trial court rightly itself allowed the same as the arbitrator was not<br \/>\nrequired to give any reason for passing the award.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">13.            However, considering the objection made by the DVC,<br \/>\nwhich confined their submissions to ground no.-C &#8216;that an award has been<br \/>\nimproperly procured since the Arbitrator has traveled beyond the terms of<br \/>\nreference by allowing lump sum Rs. 5,12,000\/- whereas total claim made<br \/>\nby the claimant was Rs. 62,351\/- only with interest @ 12% without<br \/>\nassigning reason for arriving at such conclusion and subsequently<br \/>\namended the same Rs. 62,361\/-&#8216;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">14.            In view of the legal position, as discussed above, arrived by<br \/>\nthis Court as also by the trial court the learned Sub-Judge had no power to<br \/>\namend the award, if the arbitrator has not mis-conducted himself or the<br \/>\nproceeding then either the trial court should confirm the award of Rs.<br \/>\n5,12,000\/- or he should have set aside the entire award for going beyond<br \/>\nthe reference. Since, the matters were referred with consent of the parties<br \/>\nand it also appears that after the main claim the claimant had filed<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                                   -5-<\/span><br \/>\n             amendment of the claim and by order dated 7.12.1993 passed in Title<br \/>\n             (Arbitration) Suit No. 13 of 1980 the learned Subordinate Judge with<br \/>\n             consent of both the parties referred the amendment also to the Arbitrator.<br \/>\n             In that view of the matter, the Arbitrator after considering both<br \/>\n             amendment and the original clam in his discretion passed the final award<br \/>\n             of Rs. 5,12,000\/-, which has been confirmed that one hand by the learned<br \/>\n             Subordinate Judge-II by the impugned order and also amended, is bad in<br \/>\n             law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">             15.            Accordingly, the award of Rs. 5,12,000\/- as passed by the<br \/>\n             Arbitrator is confirmed since the arbitrator was within his jurisdiction to<br \/>\n             pass the award in favour of the appellant-contractor. The second part by<br \/>\n             which this award has been amended to Rs. 62,361\/- is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">             16.            In view of the above finding that miscellaneous appeal no.<br \/>\n             87 of 1998 is allowed and the appeal filed by the D.V.C.-appellants in<br \/>\n             miscellaneous appeal no. 62\/98 is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid<br \/>\n             order the award is made rule of the court and a decree be prepared in terms<br \/>\n             of the modified award.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">                                                          (Pradeep\u00a0Kumar,\u00a0J.)<br \/>\nJharkhand\u00a0High\u00a0Court,\u00a0Ranchi<br \/>\nThe\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a05th\u00a0\u00a0May\u00a0\u00a02010<br \/>\njk\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 M. A. No. 87 of 1998 ( R) With M. A. No. 62 of 1998 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- Against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1997 passed by Sri Sheo Murat Ram, Sub- Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Arbitration Case No. 13 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-27T13:07:56+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T13:07:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1043,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T13:07:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-27T13:07:56+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T13:07:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010"},"wordCount":1043,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010","name":"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T13:07:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satrughan-prasad-singh-vs-damodar-valley-corporation-o-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satrughan Prasad Singh vs Damodar Valley Corporation &amp; O on 5 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/267938","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=267938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}