# Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 667 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-29 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43504 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 3 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 667 14. There would be no impediment of the financier in taking the financed vehicle in terms of the agreement unless the contract is held to be unconscionable or opposed to public policy. (Vide: Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited Versus Jagmander Singh and another) 15. In a recent judgment in M/s Sundaram Finance Limited and another Versus T. Thankam, decided on 2 February 2015, the Supreme Court upon considering the aforementioned judgments, in para 15 of the report, observed as follows: "Once an application in due compliance of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction. It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted. There is a lot of difference between the two approaches. Once it is brought to the notice of the court that its jurisdiction has been taken away in terms of the procedure prescribed under a special statue, the civil court should first see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction in terms or compliance of the procedure under the special statute. The general law should yield to the special law- generalia specialibus non derogant. In such a situation, the approach shall not be to see whether there is still jurisdiction in the civil court under the general law. Such approaches would only delay the resolution of disputes and complicate the redressal of grievance and of course unnecessarily increase the pendency in the court."The order of the trial court declining to refer the matter to the arbitrator was set aside. 16. For the reasons and law stated herein above, the court below was justified in the facts of the case in referring the parties as per the arbitration clause to seek redressal under the Arbitration Act, however, the order directing the parties to furnish the name of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act being without jurisdiction is set aside. 17. The petition is partially allowed. It will be open for the parties to seek redressal regarding appointment of the arbitrator as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act. 18. No cost. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. Misc. Bench No. - 6093 of 2016 Jitendra Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: 668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Aprajita Bansal Quo Warranto - Gram Pradhan Disqualification - Challenge to respondent no.8's election as Gram Pradhan due to 1986 conviction u/s 307/149 IPC (moral turpitude), confirmed 07.11.2000 - Held, 5-year disqualification lapsed per Rule 3C U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1994 post sentence/fine expiry. (Paras 1-2) Disqualification Computation - Rule 3C - Period runs from imprisonment expiry, fine payment/recovery, or later thereof (cl. g-m, Sec.5A) - Sentence undergone long ago; bar inapplicable now. Election Challenge Time-Barred - Statutory lapse defeats quo warranto; writ dismissed 29.3.2016. Writ Petition Dismissed (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. & Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission. 2. This petition has been filed for a writ of quo-warranto on the ground that the respondent no. 8 suffers from an inherent disqualification for being elected as Gram Pradhan on account of his conviction on 30.06.1986 in an offence involving moral turpitude under Sections 307 & 149 I.P.C. that was confirmed in appeal by the High Court on 07.11.2000. A copy of the judgment is annexed as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. A perusal thereof indicates that the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to the period under gone and deposit of fine. The sentence was therefore already carried out long back. 3. Ms. Aprajita Bansal has rightly pointed out that this sufferance of disqualification lapses on account of the provisions made in Rule 3 (C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Computation of Period of Five years for Removal of Disqualification, Fixation of Period of Dues etc. and Settlement of Disputes of Disqualification) Rules 1994 that is extract herein under:- "3. Computation of period of five years - The date from which the period of five years for removal of disqualification under clauses (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) or (m) of Section 5-A of the Act shall be computed will be as follows :-- (a) ............ (b) ............ 3 All. Raj Kumar Agarwal Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 669 (c) For clauses (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) or (m); (i) In case of sentence of imprisonment, from the date of expiry of the period of sentence; (ii) In the case of sentence of fine, from the date of payment or recovery thereof; (iii) In the case of sentence of both imprisonment and fine, from the date of expiry of sentence, or payment or recovery of fine, which ever is later." 4. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the election in question now cannot be challenged on such a ground as the statutory period as applied in the case of the petitioner has already lapsed. 5. We do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. Misc. Bench No. 6245 of 2016 Raj Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Prashant Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Police Gunner on Payment - Rate Hike Upheld - Ex-MLC challenged SP Hardoi's order dated 5.2.2016 raising payment for police gunner - Held, no substantiated threat for free security; paid deployment per G.O. dt. 9.5.2014; no cogent material to interfere. (Paras 1-2) No Free Security Entitlement - Absence of pleaded/supported threat perception bars govt.- expense gunner for ex-MLC. (Para 1) No Interference in SP's Discretion- Political leader's "ornamental" gunner demand lacks merit; writ rejected 29.3.2016. (Para 2)