# Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd v. P.N.B. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 1020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Commercial Appeal No. 5 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/omnarayansri-agrifarmer-pvt-ltd-v-p-n-b-ors-53085
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Recovery Law - Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 - Section 34 - Civil Procedure Code
- Order VII R. 11 - Bar of Civil Court -
Account was declared NPA - Commercial
Court rejected the plaint on the ground of
its being barred - Validity challenged -
Held, the suit filed by the appellant was
barred by S. 34 of Act, 2002 as declaration
of account of the appellant as N.P.A. could
not be seen in isolation qua the measures
taken or to be taken or may be taken in
pursuance of the power conferred under
4 All. Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. & Ors.
1021
the Act, 2002 - Mardia Chemicals Ltd.'s
case relied upon. (Para 17 and 19)

Commercial Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consistently stated that she has been raped
by the accused and even in the crossexamination, the 'X' has been suggested
that she was a consenting party in this
incident, to which the 'X' has denied. There
is no material inconsistency or material
contradiction in the testimony of the 'X',
so as to make her testimony unreliable.
The 'X' has sustained simple injuries in
the incident, which has been proved by
the doctor P.W.-3. The suggestions given
to the 'X' P.W.-1 in her cross-examination
also prove that the accused was present at
the
relevant
time
of
occurrence.
According to the accused, the incident
occurred with the consent of the 'X',
which she has denied. The trial court has
not analysed, the evidence of the 'X' and
has
no-where
held
that
'X'
is
untrustworthy. The trial court has only
disbelieved the prosecution case, on the
ground that there is previous enmity
between the accused and the informant,
the F.I.R. has been registered with
inordinate delay and the medical report of
the
'X'
does
not
support
the
offence/incident of rape, which are
wholly perverse findings, as has been
analysed by me in this judgement herein
before.

41. It is evident that, in view of the
above analysis, only one conclusion is
possible that the accused has committed
rape of the 'X', but the trial court has
misread the evidence and has misdirected
itself, which has caused a serious
miscarriage of justice. It is a perfect case
requiring interference by the appellate
court,
in
exercise
of
its
appellate
jurisdiction.

42. Heard learned counsel for the
accused- respondent on the quantum of
sentence to be imposed on the convicted
accused.

43. I fully agree with the punishment
imposed by my learned brother.

44. The accused is given two months'
time to surrender before the trial court
concerned to undergo the remaining
sentence, if any. Any period undergone by
the accused during trial in jail, be adjusted
from the sentence imposed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 1020
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Commercial Appeal No. 5 of 2025

Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
P.N.B. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arun Mishra, Vijay Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Jainendra Kumar Mishra

A. Recovery Law - Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 - Section 34 - Civil Procedure Code
- Order VII R. 11 - Bar of Civil Court -
Account was declared NPA - Commercial
Court rejected the plaint on the ground of
its being barred - Validity challenged -
Held, the suit filed by the appellant was
barred by S. 34 of Act, 2002 as declaration
of account of the appellant as N.P.A. could
not be seen in isolation qua the measures
taken or to be taken or may be taken in
pursuance of the power conferred under
4 All. Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. & Ors.
1021
the Act, 2002 - Mardia Chemicals Ltd.'s
case relied upon. (Para 17 and 19)

Commercial Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bank of India & anr.Vs M/s Maruti Civil
Works; 2024 (1) ICC 396

2. Mrs. Leelamma Mathew Vs M/s Indian
Overseas Bank & ors.; 2023 All SCR 1

3. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs U.O.I.& ors.; 2004
(4) SCC 311.

4. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. Vs SRGP
Corp. Ltd.; 2024 SCC Online Del 1148

5. Gaurav Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tamilnadu
Mercantile Bank Ltd.; 2022 (6) ALT 529

6. Jagdish Singh Vs Heeralal & ors.; 2014 (1)
SCC 479

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun
Bhansali,Chief Justice & Hon'ble Kshitij
Shailendra,J.)

1. Heard Shri Arun Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant, Shri Jainendra
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the
record.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The present appeal under Section
13 (1-A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015
(in short 'the Act, 2015') has been filed
challenging an order dated 04.03.2025
whereby
the
Commercial
Court,
Allahabad has rejected an application
filed by the appellant under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
151, Code of Civil Procedure (in short
C.P.C.) in the Commercial Suit No. 1 of
2025 as well as the plaint thereof under
Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The plaintiff obtained a cash credit
limit and term loan facility from the
respondent-Bank for running its business
and executed certain documents in relation
thereto.
After
exchange
of
certain
communications between the appellant and
the Bank, the bank account of the appellant
was declared as Non-Performing Assets
(N.P.A.) on 29/30.07.2024. The appellant
filed the Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2025 in
question with a prayer to declare notice
dated 30.07.2024 classifying the appellant's
account as N.P.A., as void for want of
requirements prescribed by the Reserve
Bank of India and without rescheduling the
term loan account. Another prayer made in
the plaint was to direct the defendants to
pay damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-
(rupees ten lac) towards mental agony and
loss of business to the plaintiff.

4. By an order dated 06.08.2024, the
Commercial Court rejected the application
filed by the appellant seeking exemption
from complying with the mandatory
provisions of Section 12-A of the Act,
2015. The appellant approached this Court
by
filing
First Appeal
From
Order
(Defective) No. 857 of 2024, which was
dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court by order dated 21.10.2024 mainly on
the ground that the appeal against the order
rejecting application seeking exemption
from
pre-institution
mediation
and
settlement is not maintainable under the
Act. The matter, thereafter, proceeded
before the Commercial Court, where the
Bank filed an application under Order VII
Rule 11 C.P.C. praying for rejection of
plaint on the ground that the suit is barred
by provisions of Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (in short 'Act, 2002'). The appellant
also filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
151 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction
pending suit and, based upon certain further
proceedings undertaken by the Bank under
Act, 2002, the appellant also sought
amendment in the plaint.

5. By the order impugned dated
04.03.2025, the Commercial Court has
found the suit as barred by Section 34 of
Act, 2002 and, consequently, not only
rejected the injunction application but also
the plaint itself by allowing the application
under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT

6. Assailing the order impugned,
learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued that bar under Section
34 of the Act, 2002 would not be attracted
at all, inasmuch as the said bar attracts
against entertainment of any suit or
proceedings in respect of any matter which
the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate
Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act
to determine. Submission is that the
Tribunal
is
competent
to
entertain
proceedings only under Section 17 of Act,
2002, which may be instituted by any
person (including borrower) aggrieved by
any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of Section 13 of Act, undertaken
by the secured creditor. It is urged that
declaration of bank account as N.P.A. is not
one of the measures taken under Section
13(4) of the Act, 2002 and, hence, once the
Tribunal is not competent to entertain a
challenge to an order/notice declaring bank
account as N.P.A., the Commercial Court
has erred in rejecting the plaint. It is also
urged that the suit was filed on 06.08.2024
and the bank, maliciously issued notice
under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002 on
the same day, i.e. 06.08.2024, and whatever
proceedings were thereafter undertaken by
the Bank, the same may be a measure under
Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, but the suit
on the date of its institution, would be
maintainable under the law. Learned
counsel further submits that cause of action
in relation to a suit has to be seen on the
date when the suit is instituted and the
plaint cannot be rejected based upon
subsequent developments or proceedings,
particularly when the same were brought
before the Court by the bank way of its
defence, whereas, while considering the
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.,
it is only the statement contained in the
plaint that has to be seen and, for this
reason also, the Commercial Court has
erred in rejecting the plaint.

7. In support of the submissions,
reliance has been placed on the following
judgments:-

(i) Bank of India and another
vs. M/s Maruti Civil Works, 2024 (1) ICC
396

(ii) Mrs. Leelamma Mathew vs.
M/s Indian Overseas Bank and others,
2023 All SCR 1.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT BANK

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
Bank, with reference to its counter
affidavit, submits that by issuing various
notices, the appellant was asked to clear the
dues, however, when the notices remained
uncomplied with, the Bank was well within
its right to declare the bank account of the
appellant as N.P.A. As regards proceedings
4 All. Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. & Ors.
1023
under the Act, 2002, submission is that the
Bank exercised its statutory power under
Section 13 of the Act, 2002 by first issuing
a notice under sub-section (2) thereof on
06.08.2024 calling upon the appellant to
repay the loan amount within 60 days. The
appellant filed objections under Section
13(3-A) of the Act, which were disposed of
on
26.09.2024
justifying
the
action
undertaken
against
the
appellant.
Thereafter, a possession notice was issued
on 21.10.2024, which was followed by a
sale
notice
dated
06.01.2025
fixing
11.02.2025 as the date for e-auction. The
appellant, after receiving the sale notice,
filed an application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. on
16.01.2025 seeking restraint order against
the proposed sale. When the Bank objected
to the injunction application, the appellant
filed an application under Order VI Rule 17
read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for
amendment
of
pleadings
originally
contained in the plaint and raised a
challenge to the demand notice under
Section 13(2) and possession notice under
Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. The Bank
proceeded to issue a subsequent sale notice
dated 28.02.2025 fixing 19.03.2025 as the
date for e-auction and, in the aforesaid
background facts, the Commercial Court
was justified in rejecting the plaint as well
as injunction application, as the suit was
barred under Section 34 of the Act, 2002.

9. It is also urged that examining the
validity of declaration of bank account as
N.P.A. also comes within the jurisdiction of
Debt Recovery Tribunal and, hence, the
suit, as initially framed, itself was not
maintainable and, even otherwise, it did
not
remain
maintainable
when
the
proceedings under Section 13(4) etc.
were put in motion. In support of his
submissions,
learned
counsel
for
respondent-Bank has placed reliance
upon the following judgments:-

(i) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs.
Union of India and others, 2004 (4)
SCC 311.

(ii)
IFCI
Venture
Capital
Funds Limited vs. SRGP Corporation
Limited, 2024 SCC Online Del 1148.

(iii) Gaurav Lubricants Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank
Ltd. 2022 (6) ALT 529.

(iv) Jagdish Singh vs. Heeralal
and others, 2014 (1) SCC 479.

ANALYSIS

10. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, the Court, first of
all, deems it appropriate to refer Section
13 of the Act, 2002 and its relevant subsections. The provision reads as under:-

"13. Enforcement of security
interest.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in section 69 or section 69A of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882), any security interest created in
favour of any secured creditor may be
enforced, without the intervention of
court or tribunal, by such creditor in
accordance with the provisions of this
Act.

(2) Where any borrower, who is
under a liability to a secured creditor
under a security agreement, makes any
default in repayment of secured debt or
any instalment thereof, and his account
in respect of such debt is classified by
the secured creditor as non-performing
asset, then, the secured creditor may
require the borrower by notice in writing to
discharge in full his liabilities to the
secured creditor within sixty days from the
date of notice failing which the secured
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or
any of the rights under sub-section (4).

..................

(4) In case the borrower fails to
discharge his liability in full within the
period specified in sub-section (2), the
secured creditor may take recourse to
one or more of the following measures to
recover his secured debt, namely:-

(a) take possession of the secured
assets of the borrower including the right to
transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale
for realising the secured asset;

(b) take over the management of
the business of the borrower including the
right to transfer by way of lease,
assignment or sale for realising the secured
asset:

........................

(c) appoint any person (hereafter
referred to as the manager), to manage the
secured assets the possession of which has
been taken over by the secured creditor;

(d) require at any time by notice
in writing, any person who has acquired
any of the secured assets from the borrower
and from whom any money is due or may
become due to the borrower, to pay the
secured creditor, so much of the money as
is sufficient to pay the secured debt."

(emphasis by us)

11. A bare perusal of Section 13
would reflect that whenever any security
interest is created in favour of any secured
creditor, the same may be enforced,
without intervention of the court or
tribunal, by such creditor in accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Act.
Declaration of an account as N.P.A., is
recognized by sub-section (2) in the event
when the borrower makes a default in
repayment of secured debt or any
instalment thereof. The same sub-section
further proceeds with issuance of notice
by the secured creditor requiring the
borrower
to
discharge
in
full
his
liabilities within 60 days failing which
the secured creditor shall be entitled to
exercise all or any of the measures under
sub-section (4) to recover the secured
debt.

12. The afore-quoted provision
reflects that action under Section 13 (4)
of the Act, 2002 is dependent upon and is
in furtherance of the event(s) mentioned
in sub-section (2) and cannot be read in
isolation. Therefore, one or the other
measure under sub-section (4) follows
declaration of the bank account as N.P.A.
and failure on the part of borrower to
discharge liability despite notice.

13. There is no dispute about the
fact that after the appellant's account was
declared as N.P.A. on 29/30.07.2024, the
Bank issued statutory
notice under
Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on
06.08.2024, which was followed by
further proceedings upto the stage of eauction of the secured assets. Therefore,
various measures were undertaken by the
Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act,
2002. It is for this reason that the
appellant proceeded not only to seek
amendment in the plaint by raising a
challenge to the measures under Section
13(4), but also seeking a restraint order
against taking of possession etc. by filing
an application for injunction under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151
C.P.C. The Commercial Court, under the
said facts and circumstances, relied upon
the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd.
(supra) and found the suit as barred by
Section 34 of the Act, 2002 holding that the
civil court or any authority has no power or
4 All. Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. & Ors.
1025
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
injunction application.

14. In the case of Mrs. Leelamma
Mathew (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
was seized of a matter where the Bank had
secured
an
immovable
property
admeasuring 54 cents in exercise of powers
under the Act, 2002 and secured its
possession and, thereafter, the said property
was put to auction. The plaintiff therein,
after inspection of the property, submitted
quotation for sale of 54 cents and offered
requisite sum. Tenders were invited on 'as
is where is' and 'as is what is' basis.
Ultimately, it was found through a report
submitted by the Tehsildar that the actual
measurement of the land was 39.60 cents
and that the debtor had already transferred
14.40 cents out of the land admeasuring 54
cents prior to creation of mortgage with the
Bank. The dispute of the aforesaid nature,
ultimately, gave rise to institution of a suit
for recovery of damages/compensation
with respect to 14.40 cents. The matter
reached to the High Court, who found the
suit as barred by Section 34 of the Act,
2002.
The
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
observed that the suit was filed only for
damages/compensation with respect of
balance land, which aspect could not be
decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal or
Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, Section
34 would have no application. It was also
observed
that
the
plaintiff
had
not
challenged the sale/sale certificate and,
therefore, the High Court had erred in
holding the suit as barred by Section 34.

15. Facts of the present case are
entirely different where, on account of
default in discharge of financial liability,
the Bank declared the account of the
appellant as N.P.A. and commercial suit
was filed seeking a declaration of holding
such order of the Bank as null and void.
Although, damages for mental agony etc.
were also claimed in the suit, when the
matter went up to the stage of auction sale,
the appellant itself sought to assail all
proceedings under the Act, 2002, the
challenge whereto could be laid before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal and not by way of
the suit. Therefore, the cited judgment in
the case of Mrs. Leelamma Mathew
(supra) has no application to the facts of the
present case.

16. Reliance placed by the appellant
on the judgment of Bombay High Court in
the case of M/s Maruti Civil Works
(supra) is thoroughly misplaced, inasmuch
as, the issue before the Bombay High Court
was as to, when an application under Order
VII Rules 10 and 11 (d) of C.P.C., filed by
the Bank is rejected, whether an appeal
under Section 13(1-A) of the Act, 2015
would lie. The Bombay High Court held
the appeal as not maintainable. Here, the
situation is reverse that is to say that the
application filed by the Bank under Order
VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. has been allowed by
the Commercial Court and, consequently,
the plaint has been rejected. We have not
raised any doubt regarding maintainability
of this appeal and, therefore, the judgement
has no application.

17. In the case of Mardia Chemicals
Ltd. (supra), bar of jurisdiction of the civil
court under Section 34 of the Act, 2002 was
specifically dealt with in the light of the
language used in the provision. When it
was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that before any action or measure is
taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13,
there would be no bar to approach the civil
court, the Apex Court turned down the said
submission in paragraph 50 of the report
and held as under:-
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"50. It has also been submitted
that an appeal is entertainable before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal only after such
measures as provided in sub-section (4) of
Section 13 are taken and Section 34 bars to
entertain any proceeding in respect of a
matter which the Debt Recovery Tribunal
or the appellate Tribunal is empowered to
determine. Thus before any action or
measure is taken under sub-section (4) of
Section 13, it is submitted by Mr. Salve one
of the counsel for respondents that there
would be no bar to approach the civil court.
Therefore, it cannot be said no remedy is
available to the borrowers. We, however,
find that this contention as advanced by
Shri Salve is not correct. A full reading
of section 34 shows that the jurisdiction
of the civil court is barred in respect of
matters which a Debt Recovery Tribunal
or appellate Tribunal is empowered to
determine in respect of any action taken
"or to be taken in pursuance of any
power conferred under this Act". That is
to say the prohibition covers even
matters which can be taken cognizance
of by the Debt Recovery Tribunal though
no measure in that direction has so far
been taken under sub-section (4) of
Section 13. It is further to be noted that
the bar of jurisdiction is in respect of a
proceeding which matter may be taken
to the Tribunal. Therefore, any matter in
respect of which an action may be taken
even later on, the civil court shall have
no
jurisdiction
to
entertain
any
proceeding thereof. The bar of civil court
thus applies to all such matters which
may be taken cognizance of by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, apart from those
matters in which measures have already
been taken under sub-section (4) of
Section 13."

(emphasis by us)

18. The judgements in the case of
Gaurav Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
Jagdish Singh (supra) follow the ratio in
the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd.
(supra).

19. In view of the above law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the suit
filed by the appellant was barred by Section
34 of Act, 2002 as declaration of account of
the appellant as N.P.A. could not be seen in
isolation qua the measures taken or to be
taken or may be taken in pursuance of the
power conferred under the Act, 2002.

20. As far as the last submission made
by learned counsel for the appellant that
while deciding an application under Order
VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., only statement
contained in the plaint and not defence
raised by the defendants has to be seen,
there is no quarrel with the said proposition
which is apparent from the language of the
provision. However, the appellant is not
correct in raising this argument in the facts
of the present case where, even if we ignore
the defence of the Bank with respect to
measures taken under Section 13(2) or
13(4) read with applicable Rules, the fact
remains that the appellant itself described
these proceedings in its application under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. and also in the
application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.
Such assertions will certainly be read in
connection with the plaint and would be
deemed to be statement contained in the
plaint, which was not only sought to be
amended, but allied prayers were also made
through injunction application. Therefore,
the Commercial Court did not err in
considering the admissions made by the
plaintiff itself and, hence, the submission
advanced that the Commercial Court has
rejected
the
plaint
by
taking
into
4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.
1027
consideration the defence raised by the
Bank, has no substance.

21. In view of above discussion, the
order passed by the Commercial Court
rejecting the injunction application as well
as plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
does not suffer from any error of fact
and/or law. Consequently, the appeal fails
and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 1027
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 846 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Mahaveer Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ratan Deep Mishra, C.S.C., S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vinod Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Regularization of Persons
Working on Daily Wages or on Work
Charge or on Contract in Government
Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D'
Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public
Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - Rule
6(1)(i) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 16 - Regularisation - Continuous
working - Petitioners have not rendered
continuous service over years - Whether
this interruption in service was due to
their own voluntary absence or was
caused by artificial break i.e. a deliberate
act on part of employer preventing them
from working, a question that requires
examination by competent authority - As
per Rules authority competent to assess is
Selection Committee - Duty of Selection
Committee to examine work records,
determine nature, cause of absence period
- No consideration has been made, nor
have petitioners been given opportunity to
explain reasons for their absence - Claim
of regularization must be reconsidered
afresh - Petitioners must be afforded
proper opportunity of hearing, including
chance to explain period of their absence -
Selection
Committee
shall
reconsider
entire matter, pass reasoned order -
Impugned order, set aside. (Para 9)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Janardan Yadav Vs St. of U. P. & ors., 2008
(1) UPLBEC 498, (Para 18 to 25)

2. Jagannath Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2019
SCC OnLine All 8274

3. Janardan Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2008
(2) ESC 1359, (Para 10)

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Roop Yadav, Special
Appeal No. 47 of 2016

5. St. of U.P. Vs Raj Kumar Srivastava (2017) 4
UPLBEC 3359, (Para 171 to 175)

6. Secretary, St. of Karn. & ors. Vs Umadevi (3)
& ors.; (2006) 4 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,
J.)

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by
the State challenging the judgment of
learned Single Judge rendered in Writ-A
No. 19200 of 2019, whereby, the writ
petition has been allowed and a direction
has been issued to the State-respondent to
regularize the services of the respondentspetitioners.