{"id":30044,"date":"2009-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-17T16:26:37","modified_gmt":"2018-04-17T10:56:37","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 2009<\/div>\n
CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                      1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                          Civil Revision No.3506 of 2002 (O&M)\n                          Date of Decision: September 04, 2009\n\n\n\nState of Punjab                                     ...........Petitioner\n\n\n                               Versus\n\n\nM\/s Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull Bazar Ropar etc...........Respondents\n\n\nCoram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina\n\nPresent: Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General Punjab\n         for the petitioner.\n         Mr.Ashwani Talwar,Advocate for respondent No.1\n                             --\n<\/pre>\n
Sabina, J. (oral)<\/p>\n
               This revision petition is filed for setting aside the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree passed by the Courts below whereby objection petition filed<\/p>\n
under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was dismissed<\/p>\n
and award passed by the arbitrator was ordered to be made Rule of the<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
               The case of the parties as noticed by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, as noticed in paras 2 to 17 of its order, reads as under:-<\/p>\n
          “2.The brief facts of the case are that petitioner\/respondent No.1<\/p>\n
          filed application directing respondent No.2 to produce the award<\/p>\n
          and proceedings and also filed application for making the same as<\/p>\n
          rule of the Court submitting that respondent No.2 was appointed<\/p>\n
          as arbitrator by the Court and after entering into the reference and<\/p>\n
          after adjudicating the matter has given award on 5.5.1999 and
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
         arbitrator has given reasoned award which does not suffer from<\/p>\n
         any illegality as arbitrator is the master of fact and law and his<\/p>\n
         inter-pretation is final and Civil Court cannot sit in appeal and<\/p>\n
         scope of interference is limited. That the arbitrator has given<\/p>\n
         ample opportunity to both the parties to produce their evidence<\/p>\n
         and thereafter made award.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.The State-objector\/appellant has filed objections, taking<\/p>\n
         preliminary objections that arbitrator has announced the award<\/p>\n
         without taking into consideration all the facts of the case and<\/p>\n
         without giving proper hearing to the arguments of the objector<\/p>\n
         and award is apparent as product of non-application of mind.<\/p>\n
         That claimant submitted different claims than the claims<\/p>\n
         originally submitted different claims than the claims originally<\/p>\n
         submitted before the Executive Engineer. Claimant submitted a<\/p>\n
         claim of Rs.2,41,850\/- before the Executive Engineer but at the<\/p>\n
         time of presentation before the arbitrator he put forth claim of<\/p>\n
         Rs.7,59,350\/- and during the course of proceedings gave escalated<\/p>\n
         details of these claims for adjudication to the arbitrator but the<\/p>\n
         arbitrator has not appreciated these facts and award is based on no<\/p>\n
         evidence and clear cut case of non-application of mind and also<\/p>\n
         has decided time barred claims for which he was not competent<\/p>\n
         and has also awarded double interest for which he was not<\/p>\n
         entitled. Claim-wise objections are as under:-<\/p>\n
           CLAIM NO.1 : PAYMENT DUE ON ACCOUNT OF FINAL<\/p>\n
           BILL REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSITS AND RELEASE<\/p>\n
           OF AMOUNT OF LESSOR RATE PAID.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4.             It is submitted that Rs. 15,747.95\/- was lying in the<\/p>\n
           final bill of the agency and agency submitted bill for<\/p>\n
           Rs.28000\/- then revised to Rs.26,881.30 Ps           but arbitrator<\/p>\n
           without going into the facts on records gave award amounting<\/p>\n
           to Rs.20,623.30 Ps with his own yard stick and award is based<\/p>\n
           on no evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            CLAIM NO.2: CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.    It is submitted that there is no clause inthe agreement to<\/p>\n
           pay interest on delayed payment and arbitrator not only<\/p>\n
           awarded this amount          but also awarded interest on this<\/p>\n
           agreement and which is beyond the terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n
           contract agreement and against claim No.7 the arbitrator has<\/p>\n
           already given 15% compound interest and arbitrator gave<\/p>\n
           interest on double amount.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           CLAIM NO.3: PAYMENT DUE FOR ESCALATION<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6.    That arbitrator has never applied his mind judiciously and<\/p>\n
           has not given due weightage to the clauses of the agreement<\/p>\n
           which is the back bone of the entire case because as per clause<\/p>\n
           No.41 of the contract agreement price adjustment will be made<\/p>\n
           only for the work done within the stipulated period but<\/p>\n
           contractor had applied for extension as he have not completed<\/p>\n
           the work within the stipulated period.        The agency intially<\/p>\n
           demanded Rs.7250\/- but arbitrator awarded Rs.31,887\/- and<\/p>\n
           arbitrator could not award more than the claim submitted before<\/p>\n
           him and claim is without any evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           CLAIM NO.4: CLAIM FOR IDLE PERIOD
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           7. That arbitrator has wrongly awarded Rs.75,000\/- on account<\/p>\n
           of idle labour, although there is no idle labour and it was for<\/p>\n
           the contractor to use his source to best of his utility nor the<\/p>\n
           contractor ever reported that the labour is sitting idle.<\/p>\n
           CLAIM NO.5:CLAIM FOR SILT CLEARANCE<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           8.     It is submitted that the facts reported by agency in this<\/p>\n
           respect were found to be incorrect and no work could have<\/p>\n
           been done without sanction and it is any body’s guess how the<\/p>\n
           agency has executed such huge quantity of earth work without<\/p>\n
           any proper sanction, and arbitrator has not applied mind and<\/p>\n
           awarded amount of Rs.70,000\/- which is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
           COUNTER CLAIM NO.1:BY OBECTOR\/APPELLANT<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           9.    It is submitted that arbitrator had not taken on record any<\/p>\n
           document from the agency showing return of empty cement<\/p>\n
           bags, rather the department has shown indent duly signed but<\/p>\n
           arbitrator favoured the agency by rejecting the claim of the<\/p>\n
           respondent and amount of R.7125\/- on this account is liable to<\/p>\n
           be recovered from the agency<\/p>\n
           COUNTER CLAIM NO.3: MAKING DOWELS ON BOTH<\/p>\n
           SIDES<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           10.   That the agency has not constructed dowels as per<\/p>\n
           specification and arbitrator has admitted that they were not in<\/p>\n
           proper shape, meaning thereby they were not constructed<\/p>\n
           according to the requirement and amount of Rs.9450\/- on this<\/p>\n
           account is liable to be awarded in favour of the objector.<\/p>\n
           COUNTER CLAIM NO.4 (LIQUIDATED CHARGED)
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           11. That the agency admitted that they have completed work on<\/p>\n
           26.9.1989 and department has claimed I.D.charges from<\/p>\n
           19.2.1988 because agency failed to complete the work by due<\/p>\n
           date and counter claim amounting to Rs.6,23,925\/- be awarded<\/p>\n
           along with interest from 1\/98 onwards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           12.            The petitioner\/respondent No.1 has contested the<\/p>\n
           objection petition taking preliminary objections that the<\/p>\n
           arbitrator has given his award after giving full opportunity to<\/p>\n
           both the parties and taking into consideration the whole case<\/p>\n
           and evidence and even otherwise arbitrator being technical man<\/p>\n
           of the department is fully conversant with the procedural<\/p>\n
           technicalities and personally visited the site on 5.4.1999 before<\/p>\n
           giving the award and opportunity was given to both the parties<\/p>\n
           and it is settled law that arbitrator is master of fact and law and<\/p>\n
           best judge of the quality and quantity of evidence and his<\/p>\n
           interpretation is final and Civil Court cannot sit in appeal. It is<\/p>\n
           submitted that award can be interfered only if the arbitrator has<\/p>\n
           mis-conducted with himself or with the proceedings and Civil<\/p>\n
           Court cannot re-appraise and re-appreciate the evidence. That<\/p>\n
           reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator cannot be<\/p>\n
           gone into by the Civil Court and even if there are two possible<\/p>\n
           interpretations of the same clauses, the interpretation given by<\/p>\n
           the arbitrator is final. It is submitted that arbitrator has given<\/p>\n
           the reasoned and detailed award and Civil Court cannot re-<\/p>\n
           appraise as the award is reasoned award and allegations have<\/p>\n
           been dealt with by the arbitrator and there is no change in the
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
           claim submitted by the claimant\/petitioner.         It is further<\/p>\n
           submitted that the arbitrator has given the award on the basis of<\/p>\n
           record given by both the parties and it is reasoned one and it is<\/p>\n
           not necessary to give detailed history of the whole case and<\/p>\n
           even brief note of reason is sufficient and it cannot be<\/p>\n
           interfered by the Civil Court and the allegations are only for the<\/p>\n
           sake of raising the objections otherwise there is no proof in the<\/p>\n
           same and award has been given on the basis of evidence<\/p>\n
           produced by the parties and respondent failed to substantiate<\/p>\n
           their claim an now the decision is final. Claim-wise reply is<\/p>\n
           submitted as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           CLAIM NO.1:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           13.   With regard to claim No.1, it is submitted that arbitrator<\/p>\n
           has awarded the claim on the basis of evidence led by both the<\/p>\n
           parties and after giving proper opportunity and interpretation<\/p>\n
           given by the arbitrator is final. It is further submitted that<\/p>\n
           change in the amount of claim is due to clerical mistake which<\/p>\n
           is in accordance with the rate as given by the appellant\/objector<\/p>\n
           and award does not suffer from any mis-conduct or illegality.<\/p>\n
           CLAIM NO.2:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           14.    It is submitted that the arbitrator has rightly awarded the<\/p>\n
           interest for which arbitrator has power and now there is no bar<\/p>\n
           for the arbitrator to award interest and interpretation of the<\/p>\n
           arbitrator is final.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           CLAIM NO.3:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           15.    It is submitted that interpretation of the agreement by the
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
           arbitrator is final and same cannot be interfered by the civil<\/p>\n
           court, even if there are two possible interpretations and civil<\/p>\n
           court cannot see whether interpretation is right or wrong and<\/p>\n
           Court can       interfere only if arbitrator has mis-conduct the<\/p>\n
           proceedings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           CLAIM NO.4:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           16.   It is submitted that arbitrator is a technical man and is<\/p>\n
           known to the practice and procedure of the work and has<\/p>\n
           awarded the amount being conversant with the system and<\/p>\n
           arbitrator has rightly awarded the amount, so there is no mis-<\/p>\n
           conduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           CLAIM NO.5:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           17.     It is submitted that        arbitrator has taken into<\/p>\n
           consideration the whole evidence and award is final and there is<\/p>\n
           no mis-conduct on the part of the arbitrator and evidence<\/p>\n
           cannot be appreciated by the Civil Court and there is no mis-<\/p>\n
           conduct.       With regard to the objection of interest, it is<\/p>\n
           submitted that arbitrator has full power to award interest. With<\/p>\n
           regard to objection of counter-claim, it is submitted that<\/p>\n
           arbitrator has given award in accordance with the evidence on<\/p>\n
           the basis of personal verification and has rightly dismissed the<\/p>\n
           counter-claims and prayed that the objections be dismissed and<\/p>\n
           prayed that the award be made as rule of Court in toto.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were<\/p>\n
framed:-\n<\/p>\n
              “1. Whether award is liable to be made rule of the
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
               Court?OPA<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               2. Whether award is illegal and is liable to be<\/p>\n
               set aside?OPR\/O<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               3. Relief.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out.<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the<\/p>\n
Arbitrator had misconducted by awarding amount beyond the scope of the<\/p>\n
agreement and hence, the award could not be sustained. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the State has further submitted that so far as claims No.3, 4 and 6 are<\/p>\n
concerned, the Arbitrator had awarded the amount qua the said claim<\/p>\n
beyond the scope of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
               It is a settled proposition of law that the Civil Court cannot<\/p>\n
sit as a Court of appeal with regard to the award submitted by the Arbitrator.<\/p>\n
However, in case, the Arbitrator has misconducted then the Court can<\/p>\n
interfere and set aside the award. In the present case, work was allotted to<\/p>\n
the respondent. Payment of the execution of the work was not made to the<\/p>\n
respondent and consequently the matter came up before the Arbitrator.<\/p>\n
               The Arbitrator, while dealing with claim No.3 has observed<\/p>\n
that the department had paid a lesser amount than the amount claimed by the<\/p>\n
respondent on account of escalation. The extensions which were sought by<\/p>\n
the respondent were not attributable to the respondent. After going through<\/p>\n
the record, the Arbitrator opined that the       contractor was entitled to<\/p>\n
escalation price on the work done by him.\n<\/p>\n
                   Similarly, while dealing with claim No.4, the Arbitrator<\/p>\n
found that the labour had remained idle on account of stoppage of work and
\n CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M)                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
the work could only be started after the sanction of competent authority<\/p>\n
received.    In these circumstances, the Contractor was liable tobe<\/p>\n
compensated.\n<\/p>\n
                  So far as claim No. 6 is concerned, the Arbitrator found<\/p>\n
that the respondent had done concrete lining on canal after disilting canal<\/p>\n
bed. In this regard, the respondent was liable to be compensated.<\/p>\n
                 However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the<\/p>\n
Arbitrator had misconducted.       The Arbitrator, after appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence led by the parties, has decided the matter. The award was made<\/p>\n
rule of the Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.2000 by the Civil<\/p>\n
Judge(Senior Division) Rupnagar and the appeal filed by the State against<\/p>\n
the said judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
11.2.2002.   Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the<\/p>\n
payment in terms of the award has since been made and,thus, the award<\/p>\n
stood satisfied. Hence, no ground for interference is made out.<\/p>\n
                 Dismissed<\/p>\n
                                                  ( Sabina )
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
September 04, 2009<\/p>\n
arya\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 2009 CR No.3506 of 2002(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3506 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 04, 2009 State of Punjab ………..Petitioner Versus M\/s Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull Bazar Ropar […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull ... on 4 September, 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull ... on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-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=\"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-17T10:56:37+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs M\\\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-17T10:56:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2075,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs M\\\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull ... on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-17T10:56:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs M\\\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 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":"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull ... on 4 September, 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull ... on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-17T10:56:37+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-17T10:56:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009"},"wordCount":2075,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009","name":"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull ... on 4 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-17T10:56:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ms-aar-kay-construction-co-pull-on-4-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs M\/S Aar Kay Construction Co.Pull … on 4 September, 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\/30044","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=30044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30044\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}