ivil Appeals Nos
322  323 of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated 2731973 and 23575 of the Delhi High Court in FAO OS No 35 of 1969 and CM No 1300 of 1974 in FAO OS 35 of 1969
PP Juneja for the Appellant
BB Barua Ms A Subhashini NP and Ms Indira Sawhney  NP  for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SC AGRAWAL J
Civil Appeal No 322 of 1976 This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment dated March 27 1973 of the High Court of Delhi in FAO OS No 35 of 1968
The appellant section Harcharan Singh was awarded a contract for 80 constructing approaches to the Bridge Structure B 2 on the North Sikkim Road in 1959 60
Under the agreement the appel lant was required to do hard rock cutting to the extent of 754530 cft
The rate fixed for the said work in the con tract was Rs129 per thousand cft
plus 2
The appellant was required to perform hard rock cutting to the extent of 18 18704 cft
The appellant claimed payment at the rate of Rs200 per thousand cft
for the additional work of hard rock cutting
He also claimed certain other sums under other heads
The dispute in respect of four heads was referred to arbitration in accordance with the clause 25 of the agree ment
The arbitrator gave his award dated February 5 1965 wherein he disallowed the claim of the appellant in respect of two items but made an award in favour of the appellant in respect of two items of claim
In this appeal we are only concerned with the claim of the appellant in respect of the additional work of hard rock cutting which the appellant was required to execute
The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs52800 against the said item
The award was filed in the High Court by the arbitrator alongwith his letter dated June 6 1968
Objections were filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The said objections were consid ered by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court and by order dated April 23 1969
the said objections of the respondent were rejected and it was ordered that the award be made a rule of the Court
The respondent filed an appeal against the said order and decree passed by the learned single Judge
The appeal was partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated March 27 1973 whereby the award as regards the claim for higher remunera tion at the rate of Rs200 per thousand cft
for the addi tional work of hard rock cutting was set aside
The award in respect of other item of the claim relating to expenditure incurred by the appellant in reconstructing the retaining walls after damage was maintained
Aggrieved by the said decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the appel lant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave
As indicated earlier this appeal is confined to the claim of the appellant for payment for the additional work of hard rock cutting which the appellant was required to execute
The appellant has claimed a higher rate of Rs200 per thousand cft
for this additional work
Under the agree ment the appellant was required to execute hard rock cutting to the extent of 754530 cft
but actually he was required to execute such cutting to the extent of 1815 lacs cft
The extent of the additional work was about 1060 lacs cft
 ie about 140
While undertaking the execution of the additional work of hard rock 81 cutting the appellant in his letter dates August 24 1960 addressed to the Executive Engineer Central Division No II Gangtok had requested for revision of the rate for hard rock cutting and stated that the minimum working rates for this item are 52 above the tendered rates
The ExecUtive Engineer by his letter dated September 2 1960 requested the appellant to submit an analysis of rate for hard rock cutting
The appellant submitted his analysis of rates on September 14 1960 wherein after analysing the rates of materials and labour the workable rate worked out to Rs200 per thousand cft
The Executive Engineer also got an analy sis of rates done on the basis of the data collected on actual observation and he arrived at a figure of Rs237 per thousand cft
By his letter dated November 9 1961 addressed to the Superintending Engineer Calcutta Central Circle No III CPWD Calcutta the Executive Engineer recommended the extra rate of Rs200 per thousand cft
for work in excess of 20 of the stipulated quantity
The Superintending Engineer in his letter dated February 23 1962 addressed to the Additional Chief Engineer III Central PWD New Delhi made a similar recommendation and the Additional Chief Engineer made a similar recommendation in his letter dated July 16 1962 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Works and Housing
It appears that the Government did not agree to pay at a rate in excess of the rate of Rs129 per thousand cft
plus 2 stipulated under the agreement
The dispute was therefore referred to arbitration
The arbitrator in his award has considered this item of claim as under Claim Dispute Award The contractor claims The arbitrator The claim of the that for Item No 3 of is to deter contractor is the agreement he should mine whether partly justified
be paid at the rate of under the He should be paid Rs200 per 1000 cft
terms and con an amount of for the quantities ditions of the Rs52800 Rupees beyond what is stipu contract the fifty two thousand lated in the agreement
claim is jus and Eight hundred tified and if only in addition so to what ex to the payment to tent be made to him at relevant agreement rate for the total quantity of work executed by him under this item
 82 Before the learned single Judge it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the award is a speaking award and from the award it is apparent that the arbitrator has fixed rates for additional work done by the contractor which the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to do by reason of clause 12 of the agreement between the parties which provides that additions to the contract work shall be carried out by the contractor on the same conditions in all respects on which he agreed to do the main work and at the same rates as specified in the tender for the mainwork
The learned single Judge rejected the said contention and held that the arbi trator was determining only the value of the additional work at the rate of Rs200 which had been agreed by the Engineer in charge and the Superintending Engineer of the Circle as contemplated by clause 12 and the scope of the inquiry before the arbitrator was only the quantity of work which was additional to the quantities specified in the agreement
The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have disagreed with the said view and have ob served that it is clear from the statement of claim as incorporated in the award and the affidavit of the contrac tor that there was no dispute with regard to the quantity of work and the only dispute was with regard to the rate and that the arbitrator had allowed a sum of Rs52800 to the contractor in respect of the total quantity of work executed by him under item No 3 in addition to the agreed rate and that there was no escape from the conclusion that the arbi trator had awarded the above amount by applying a rate higher than the agreed rate
The learned Judges of the Division Bench were of the view that under clause 12 of the agreement the provision with regard to the fixing of the rate by the Engineer incharge and the Superintending Engi neer of the Circle comes into play only when the additional item of work does not form part of the main work and the rates for such work are not specified in the schedule of rates
The learned Judges of the Division Bench have held that since the additional hard rock cutting job done by the appellant was part of the main work and the agreement pro vided the rate for the said item there was no occasion for the Engineer in charge or the Suprer intending Engineer to fix the rate for the extra quantity of hard rock cutting and that the action of the arbitrator in allowing the rate to the contractor in excess of the agreed rate for the job of hard rock cutting was against clause 12 of the agreement and thereby the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction
As regards the award of an arbitrator under the Act
the law is well settled that the arbitrator s adjudication is generally considered binding between the parties for he is a tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the court to set aside the award is restricted to cases 83 set out in section 30 of the Act viz a if the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings or b when the award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35 or c when the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid
Under clause c of Section 30 the Court can set aside an award which suffers from an error on the face of the award
It is
however
not open to the Court to speculate where no rea sons are given by the arbitrator
as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion
But the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is limited by the reference and if the arbitrator has assumed jurisdiction not possessed by him the award to the extent to which it is beyond the arbitra tor s jurisdiction would be invalid and liable to be set aside See Jivarajbhai Ujarnshi Sheth and Others vs Chin tatnanrao Balaji and Others  This posi tion at law has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in its recent decision in Raipur Development Authority and Others vs Ms Chokharnal Contractors and Others 1989 2 SCC 721
It has been held that an arbi trator or umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission he is re quired to give such reasons and if the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the face of the record on going through such reasons and that an award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decisions reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires him to give reasons
In the instant case the arbitration agreement or the deed of submissions did not require the arbitrator to give reasons and therefore the award cannot be questioned on the ground of an error on the face of the award
The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have set aside the award in relation to claim No 1 relating payment for additional work of hard rock cutting on the ground that in making the award the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by allowing a rate to the contractor in excess of the agreed rate for the job of hard rock cutting against the terms and conditions contained in clause 12 of the agreement
The question which needs to be considered here is as to whether in awarding the sum of Rs52800 to the appellant for the additional 84 work of hard rock cutting executed by him the arbitrator has disregarded clause 12 of the agreement
The said clause reads as under The Engineer in charge shall have power to make any altera tions in commissions from additions to or substituting for the original specifications drawings designs and instructions that may appear to him to be necessary or advisable during the progress of the work and the contrac tor shall be bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to him in writing signed by the Engineer in charge and such alterations omissions additions or substitutions shall not invalidate the con tract and any altered additional or substituted work which the contractor may be directed to do in the manner above specified as part of the work shall be carried out by the contractor on the same conditions in all respects on which he agreed to do the main work and at the same rates as are specified in the tender for the main work
The time for the completion of the work shall be extended in the proportion that the additional or substituted work bears to the Origi nal work and the certificate of the Engineer in charge shall be conclusive as to such proportion
And if the al tered additional or substituted work included any class of work for which no rate is specified in this contract then such class of work shall be carried out at the rates entered in the schedule of rates of the CPWD Schedule of Rates 53 54 on which the estimated cost shown on page 1 of tender is based provided that when the tender for the original work is a percentage above the schedule rates the altered addi tional or substituted work required as aforesaid shall be chargeable at the said schedule rate plus the same percent age deduction addition and if such class of work is not entered in the said schedule of rates then the contractor shall within seven days of the date of the receipt of the order to carry out the work inform the Engineer incharge of the rat
e which it is his intention to charge for such class of work and if the Engineer in charge does not agree to this rate he shall by notice in writing be  at liberty to cancel his order to carry out such class of work and arrange to carry it out in such manner as he may consider advisable provided always that if the contractor shall commence work or incur any expenditure in regard thereto before the rates shall have been determined as lastly hereinbefore 85 mentioned then and in such case he shall only be entitled to be paid in respect of the work carried out or expenditure incurred by him prior to the date of the determination of the rate as aforesaid according to such rate or rates as shall be fixed by the Engineer in charge
In the event of a dispute the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle shall be final
 Under this clause the Engineer in charge was empowered to make any additions to the original specifications that may appear to him to be necessary or advisable during the progress of the work and the contractor was bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions given to him in writing signed by the Engineer in charge
As regards payment for the additional work which the contractor was directed to do it was provided that i The contractor shall be paid at the same rates as are specified in the tender for the main work ii If the additional work included any class of work for which no rate was specified in the contract then the con tractor shall be paid at the rates entered into the schedule of rates of the CPWD Schedule of Rates 53 54 on which the estimated cost shown on page 1 of tender is based and if the tender for the original work is a percentage above the schedule rates the additional work shall be chargeable at the said schedule rates plus the same percentage deductionsaddition and iii If such class of work is not entered in the said Schedule of Rates then the contractor should inform the Engineer in charge within seven days of the receipt of the order the rate he wants to charge for such class of work and the Engineer in charge if he does not agree to the said rate may cancel the order for such additional work and if the contractor has commenced the work or incurred expendi ture in regard thereto before the determination of the rates the contractor shall be paid in respect of work carried out or expenditure incurred by him prior to the determination of the rates according to such rates or rates as shall be fixed by the Engineer in charge and in the event of a dispute the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle would be final
The case of the appellant is that clause 12 envisages alter ations or 86 additions within reasonable limits and an addition to the extent of 140 in respect of one particular item alone is not covered by this clause and that in awarding Rs52800 as extra payment for the additional work the arbitrator has not acted in disregard of clause 12 and he cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction
A clause making provision for additions and variations is generally found in building and construction contracts
In Hudson s Building and Engineering Contracts 8th Edn
it has been observed It may be that it can be inferred from the terms of the contract that the power to order extras although apparently unlimited is in fact limited to ordering extras up to a certain value and in such a case extras ordered in excess of that amount although work of a kind contemplated by the contract may yet be quite outside the terms of the con tract p 294 If the extra work ordered is outside the contract the terms of the contract have no application p 296 In this context it would be relevant to take note of the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Parkinson Sir Lindsay  Co Ltd vs Commissioners of His Majesty s Works and Public Buildings In that case the contractors had agreed with His Majesty s Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings to erect an ordnance factory according to the general conditions and specifications and bills of quantities and drawings annexed for the contract sum of Pound 3500000 and under the general conditions of contract the Commissioners had power at their absolute discretion to modify the extent and character of the work or to order alterations of or additions to the works and it was the duty of the contractor to comply with the archi tect s instructions in this respect
In the contract it was also provided that it is probable that further work to the value of approximately Pound 500000 would be ordered on a measured basis under the terms of the contract
The contract was amended by a deed of variation and it was provided that exceptional methods should be used to hasten the work and that a system of uneconomic working should be introduced to bring about the completion of the factory by the date fixed by the contract
The Commissioners ordered work to be exe cuted greatly in excess of the amount contemplated although not different in character from that covered by the varied contract so that the works could not be completed until a year beyond the time anticipated and the actual cost of the 87 contracts was L6683056 which amount had been paid to them alongwith L300000 the maximum profit under the deed of variation
During the progress of the work the contractors had
complained to the Commissioners that they were being called on to execute more work than was contemplated by the varied contract and claimed that they were entitled to extra remuneration for the work in excess of that contemplated but they proceeded with the work at the request of the Commis sioners leaving the issue to be subsequently decided by arbitration
The arbitrator found that the estimated cost of the work under the varied contract was L500000 and awarded L90298 as proportionate or reasonable profit or remunera tion to the contractors for the additional work
The said award was upheld by the Court of Appeal on the view that a term must be implied in the varied contract that the Commis sioners should not be entitled to require work materially in excess of the sum of L5000000 and that such excess work having been done by the contractors the Commissioners were liable to pay the contractors reasonable remuneration there fore
On behalf of the Commissioners reliance was placed on Condition 33 of the original contract which gave the Commis sioners an unlimited power of ordering extras even to the extent of altering the character of the work
The contrac tors on the other hand placed reliance on the following observations of Mc Cardie J in Naylor Benzon  Co vs Krainische Industrie Gesellschart 1918 1 KB331 It is essential to remember however that words even though general must be limited to circumstances within the contemplation of the parties
 Accepting the contention urged on behalf of the contrac tors Asquith L J observed If the original contract plus the deed are read without any implied limitation on their literal meaning the result as indicated above is that after L300000 profit has been earned by the contractor he can be compelled to labour like the Danaids without reward or limit or any further extras which the commissioners may elect to exact from him till the last syllable of recorded time  Only the most compel ling language would induce a court to construe the combined instruments as placing one party so completely at the mercy of the other
Where the language of the contract is capable of a literal and a more restricted meaning all relevant circumstances can be taken into account in decid 88 ing whether the literal or a more limited meaning should be ascribed to it
p 662 Similarly Singleton LJ has observed 1 find myself unable to agree with the submission of Mr Rewcastle that under the contract as varied by the deed of variation the contractors would have been bound to continue making alterations and additions if ordered for years and years without any extra payment by way of profit
That would have led to manifest absurdity and injustice as Mathew J said in Bush vs Whitehaven Trustees 1
There must be a limit p 673 Here also the question has often arisen whether the contractor under the variation clause is liable to execute the extra or additional quantities of the tendered items at the tendered rates to an unlimited extent
In some awards given by the arbitrators in the Central Public Works Depart ment of the Government of India the variation of the ten dered quantities under the variation clause in the contract has been restricted to 10 beyond which the contractor was entitled to claim as extras and these awards have been accepted and implemented by the Government
It appears that the standard form of contract of the Central Public Works Department has been amended and now it specifically permits for a limit of variation called deviation limit upto a maximum of 20 and upto such limit the contractor has to carry out the work at the rates stipulated in the contract and for the work in excess of that limit at the rates to be determined in accordance with clause 12 A under which the Engineer in charge can revise the rates having regard to the prevailing market rates See Gajaria s Law relating to Building and Engineering Contracts in India 3rd Edn pages 410 412
In the instant case it appears that the Executive Engineer the Superintending Engineer and the Additional Chief Engineer in their letters dated November 9 1961 February 23 1962 and July 16 1962 respectively have ex pressed the view that the additional work under the terms of the contract may be confined to 20 and the appellant may be paid at the rates prescribed in the contract for 20 of the additional work and for the extra quantity of additional work he may be paid remuneration at the increased rate taking into account the increased costs in execution of the said work on account of the peculiar nature of the work
While considering the claim of the appellant the 89 arbitrator was required to consider the terms of the con tract and to construe the same
It was therefore permissi ble for the arbitrator to consider whether clause 12 of the contract enables the Engineer incharge to require the appel lant to execute additional work without any limit or a reasonable limit should be placed on the quantity of the additional work which the appellant may be required to execute at the rate stipulated for the main work under the contract
For that purpose the arbitrator could take into consideration the practice prevalent in the Central Public Works Department in this regard as well as the correspond ence between the appellant and the authorities including the letters dated November 9 1961 February 23 1962 and July 16 1962 of the Executive Engineer the Superintending Engineer and the Additional Chief Engineer recommending payment of remuneration at the increased rate for the addi tional work in excess of 20 of the quantity stipulated in the contract
The appellant was claiming increased rate of Rs200 per 1000 cft
for the entire quantity of additional work
The arbitrator did not accept the said claim of the appellant in full and has partly allowed the said claim by awarding Rs52800 which means that the arbitrator has awarded the increased rate only for a part of the additional work of hard rock cutting which the appellant was required to execute
The arbitrator was entitled to do so on the construction placed by him on clause 12 of the contract and therefore it cannot be said that in awarding the sum of Rs52800 for the additional work the arbitrator has exceed ed his jurisdiction and the award is vitiated by an error of jurisdiction
In the circumstances we are unable to agree with the judgment of the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court on this part of the claim
The appeal is therefore allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the award of the arbitrator with regard to item No 1 of the claim relating to payment for additional work of hard rock cutting is set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the arbitrator in this regard is restored
The appellant will be entitled to his costs
Civil Appeal No 323 of 1976 This appeal is directed against the order dated May 23 1975 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court rejected CM No 1300 of 1974 filed by the appellant under Order 41 rule 21 read with Section 151 CPC praying that the ex parte judgment dated March 27 1973 in FAO OS No 35 of 1969 may be set aside and the appeal be re admit ted to its original number and the appeal be heard 90 and decided on merits
The appellant has filed CA No 322 of 1976 against the said judgment of the High Court dated March 27 1973 in FAO OS No 35 of 1968
The said appeal has been allowed by the judgment given today
Since the judgment of the High Court dated March 27 1973 has been set aside by this Court in CA No 322 of 1976 this appeal does not survive and it is disposed of accordingly
No costs
GN Appeal disposed of


Summary:
The Appellant was officiating as a Major though he held a substantive rank of Captain as a permanent Commissioned Officer of the army when on December 27 1974 he took over as the Officer Commanding 38 Coy
ASC Sup Type A  attached to the Military Hospital Jhansi
In August 1975 the Appellant went to attend a training course and returned in the first week of November
In his absence Captain GC Chhabra was commanding the unit of the appellant and he submitted a Contingent Bill dated September 25 1975 for Rs16280 for winter liveries of the depot civilian chowki dars and sweepers
The said Bill was returned by the Con troller of Defence Accounts CDA with certain objections
Thereupon the appellant submitted a fresh contingent Bill dated December 25 1975 for a sum of Rs702957
In view of the wide difference in the two Contingent Bills the CDA reported the matter to the Headquarters for investigation and a Court Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses
After considering the said report of the Court of En quiry the General Officer Commanding MP Bihar and Orissa recommended that severe displeasure  to be recorded of the General Officer Commanding in Chief of the Central Command be awarded to the appellant
The General Officer Commanding in Chief Central Command however
did not agree with the said opinion and by order dated August 26 1977 directed that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant for the lapses
Pursuant to the said order a charge sheet dated July 20 1978 containing three charges was served on the appellant and it was directed that he be tried by General Court Mar tial
The first charge was doing of a thing with intent to defraud under section 52f of the Act
The second charge was alternative to the first charge ie commit 45 ting an act prejudicial to good order and military disci pline under section 63 of the Act and the third charge was also in respect of offence under section 63 of the Act the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges
The General Court Martial on November 29 1978 found him guilty of first and third charge and awarded the sentence of dis missal from service
Thereupon the appellant submitted petition dated December 18 1978 to the Chief of Army Staff praying that the findings of the General Court Martial be not confirmed
The Chief of the Army Staff by his order dated May 11 1979 confirmed the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial
The appellant thereafter submit ted a post confirmation petition under section 1642 of the Act
This was rejected by the Central Government by order dated May 6 1980
Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed in limine
Hence this appeal by special leave directed to be heard by the Constitution Bench for the reason that it involves the question as to whether it was incumbent for the Chief of the Army Staff while confirming the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial and for the Central Government while rejecting the post confirmation petition of the appellant to record their reasons for the orders passed by them
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD The requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercis ing quasi judicial functions irrespective of the fact wheth er the decision is subject to appeal revision or judicial review
It may however be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law
The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances
What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy
62H 63A B The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage
The appel late or revisional authority if it affirms such an order need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revision al authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge
63B Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication an administra tive authority exercising judicial or quasi judicial func tions is required to record  the reasons for its decision
65B 46 The provisions contained in the and the Army Rules 1954 negative a requirement to give reasons for its findings and sentence by a Court Martial and reasons are not required to be recorded in cases where the Court Martial makes a recommendation to mercy
Similarly reasons are not required to be recorded for an order passed by the confirm ing authority confirming the findings and sentence recorded by the Court Martial as well as for the order passed by the Central Government dismissing the post confirmation peti tion
70E F Sub section 1 of section 164 of the enables a person aggrieved by an order passed by a Court Martial to present a petition against the same
The expression order under sub section 1 does not include a finding or sentence of the Court Martial and in so far as the finding and sen tence of the Court Martial is concerned the only remedy that is available to a person aggrieved by the same is under sub section 2 of section 164 of the and the said remedy can be invoked only after the finding or sentence has been confirmed by the confirming authority and not before the confirmation of the same
72B D E Though a person aggrieved by the finding or sentence of a Court Martial has no right to make a representation before the confirmation of the same by the confirming authority but in case such a representation is made by a person ag grieved by the finding or sentence of a Court Martial it is expected that the confirming authority shall give due con sideration to the same while confirming the finding and sentence of the Court Martial
72H 73A Som Datt Datta vs Union of India  Ors 1969 2 SCR 177 Bhagat Raja vs The Union of India  Ors   Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State of UP  Ors   Woolcombers of India Ltd vs Woolcombers Workers Union  Ant 1974 I SCR 503 Siemens Engineering  Manufacturing Co of India Ltd vs Union of India  Anr  Phelps Dodge Corporation vs National Labour Relations Board 1940 85 Law Edn 1271 at p 1284 Securities and Exchange Commis sion vs Chenery Corporation  at p 636 John T Dunlop vs Waiter Bachewski  377 Regina vs Gaming Board for Great Britain Exparte Benaim  Khaida  at p 431 Mc Innes vs Onslow Fane  Anr at p 1531 Breen vs Amalgamated Engineering Union  Ors  Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd vs Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 Regina vs Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Khan Mahmud  Pure Spring Co Ltd vs Minister of National Revenue 47 at p 539 Re RDR Construction Ltd  Rent Review Commission 168 Re Yar mouth Housing Ltd  Rent Review Commission  Osmond vs Public Service Board of New South Wales  Public Service Board of New South Wales vs Osmond  Ms Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala  Ors   Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd vs Union of India  Ors   Tranvancore Rayon Ltd vs Union of India   Tarachand Khatri vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi  Ors 1977 2 SCR 198 Raipur Development Authority  Ors
vs Ms Chokhamal Con tractors  Ors 1989 2 SCC 721 AK Kraipak  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
  R vs Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex P Moore 1965 1 QB 456 and Mahon vs Air New Zealand Ltd  referred to