# Raj Bali Singh v. Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 162 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-bali-singh-v-sri-nitin-ramesh-gokaran-anr-48886
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Special Appeal-Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952maintainability of -an appeal u/s 19 of the
Contempt of Court's Act 1971 would be
only from an order or a decision imposing
a punishment for contempt-the case at
hand the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction merely dismiss the contempt
petition, such orders are not amenable to
appeal u/s 19 of the Contempt of Court's
Act, 1971-Chapter VII Rule 5 of the Courts
provides for an appeal to the Court from a
"Judgment"-the orders are not in any
manner
touching
the
merits
of
the
7 All. Raj Bali Singh Vs. Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran & Anr.
313
controversy or the dispute between the
parties so as to be deemed to be judgment
or deemed to have been issued in exercise
of powers conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India-Hence, the IntraCourt Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Rules of the Court is held to be not
maintainable.(Para 1 to 12)

B. In order to constitute a judgment, an
interlocutory order must: (a) decide a
matter of moment; or (b) affect vital and
valuable rights of the parties and must
also work serious injustice to the party
concerned. Routine orders which are
passed by a Single Judge to facilitate the
progress of a case may cause some
element of inconvenience or prejudice to a
party but do not constitute a 'Judgment'
because they do not finally determine the
rights or obligations of the parties.
Procedural orders in aid of the progression
of a case or to facilitate a decision are not
judgments.(Para 10)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reason to allow the interest in this matter at
any rate higher than that allowed by High
Court."

17. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate
of interest as 6% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

18. No other grounds were urged
when the matter was heard.

19. The appeal is partly allowed.
Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
The Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 8 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

20. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High
Court in total amount of interest, accrued
on the principal amount of compensation is
to be apportioned on financial year to
financial year basis and if the interest
payable to claimant for any financial year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner is/are entitled to deduct
appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax
Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A
(3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if
the amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry
of this Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants to withdraw the amount without
producing
the
certificate
from
the
concerned Income- Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of
2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another) and in First Appeal
From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari
Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General
Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021
while disbursing the amount.

21. The records and proceedings be
sent back to the Tribunal for disbursement.
----------
(2022)07ILR A312
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 162 of 2022

Raj Bali Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Braj Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

A. Special Appeal-Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952maintainability of -an appeal u/s 19 of the
Contempt of Court's Act 1971 would be
only from an order or a decision imposing
a punishment for contempt-the case at
hand the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction merely dismiss the contempt
petition, such orders are not amenable to
appeal u/s 19 of the Contempt of Court's
Act, 1971-Chapter VII Rule 5 of the Courts
provides for an appeal to the Court from a
"Judgment"-the orders are not in any
manner
touching
the
merits
of
the
7 All. Raj Bali Singh Vs. Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran & Anr.
313
controversy or the dispute between the
parties so as to be deemed to be judgment
or deemed to have been issued in exercise
of powers conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India-Hence, the IntraCourt Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Rules of the Court is held to be not
maintainable.(Para 1 to 12)

B. In order to constitute a judgment, an
interlocutory order must: (a) decide a
matter of moment; or (b) affect vital and
valuable rights of the parties and must
also work serious injustice to the party
concerned. Routine orders which are
passed by a Single Judge to facilitate the
progress of a case may cause some
element of inconvenience or prejudice to a
party but do not constitute a 'Judgment'
because they do not finally determine the
rights or obligations of the parties.
Procedural orders in aid of the progression
of a case or to facilitate a decision are not
judgments.(Para 10)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Civil Appeal
No. 6798 of 2019

2. St. of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. & ors. Vs Ram
Murat & ors., Civil Appeal No. 872 of 2020

3. Midnapore Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. &
ors. Vs Chunilal Nanda & ors. (2006) 5 SCC 399

4. Ashutosh Shrotriya & ors. Vs Vice Chancellor,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University & ors. (2015) AIR
All 187 DB
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
& Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. This Intra-Court Appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court
has been filed against the order dated
16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.
2027 of 2020 (Raj Bali Singh versus Shri
Nitin Ramesh Gokarn, Additional Chief
Secretary / Principal Secretary and Shri
Devendra Nigam, Executive Engineer) as
also the order dated 10.3.2022 passed in
CAPL (Civil) No. 6315 of 2021 (Raj Bali
Singh versus Shri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran and
another). By the order dated 16.12.2020, the
learned Single Judge has ordered the
Contempt Application to be consigned to
record being of the view that there is no good
ground to proceed further with the contempt
application. By the order dated 10.3.2022, the
second contempt application being CAPL
(Civil) No. 6315 of 2021 has been dismissed
as not maintainable and consigned to record.

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary
details giving rise to the present proceedings
are that the appellant / writ petitioner
approached the writ Court inter-alia claiming
the following reliefs:

"a) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 1 and 6 to reckon the
petitioner's
work
charge
establishment
services into regular services for the
purposes
of
gratuity,
pension
and
consequential benefits.

b) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 6 to grant the pension and
consequential benefits to the petitioner."

3. It was contended by the counsel for
the appellant / writ petitioner that the
controversy involved was squarely covered
by the decision of the Apex Court in Prem
Singh versus State of U.P. and others, Civil
Appeal No. 6798 of 2019, dated 2.9.2019 and
the writ petition be decided in terms of the
aforesaid decision.

4. The writ Court by order dated
29.11.2019 disposed of the writ petition
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
requiring the competent authority to look
into the grievance of the petitioner and pass
appropriate order strictly, in consonance
with the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Prem Singh,
expeditiously within a period of two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order. When the
direction
of
the
writ
Court
dated
29.11.2019 was not complied with, a
contempt application, being CAPL (Civil)
No. 2027 of 2020 was filed by the appellant
/ writ petitioner alleging violation of the
direction of the writ Court.

5. Initially, the Contempt Court being
prima facie satisfied that the direction of
the writ Court had not been complied with
issued notice to the contemnors i.e. Shri
Nitin Ramesh Gokaran, Addl. Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P. and Shri
Devendra
Nigam,
Executive
Engineer
requiring their presence to answer the
contempt proceedings. The contemnors
filed an affidavit of compliance annexing a
copy of the order dated 27.11.2020 passed
by the Executive Engineer, whereby the
claim of the appellant / writ petitioner was
rejected.
The
learned
Single
Judge
exercising contempt jurisdiction considered
the compliance affidavit as also the order
dated 27.11.2020 rejecting the claim of the
writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge
noted that the order dated 27.11.2020 duly
considered the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as also
the directions of the Apex Court in the case
of State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary and others versus Ram Murat
and others; Civil Appeal No. 872 of 2020,
decided on 21.10.2020. The learned Single
Judge also took note of the Ordinance No.
19 of 2020 (U. P. Qualifying Service for
Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020)
which has been made effective with
retrospective effect and in relation to Sub
Rule 8 of the Rule 3 of the U.P. Retirement
Benefit Rules, 1961, the ordinance would
be effective from April 1, 1961. It also
noted the fact that in the case of Prem
Singh (supra) the judgment was given by
the Apex Court by reading down Rule 23
Sub Rule 8 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit
Rules, 1961. The learned Single Judge, thus
was of the view that no good ground
existed to proceed further with the
contempt
proceeding
and
accordingly
directed the contempt application to be
consigned to record vide order dated
16.12.2020..

6. The appellant / writ petitioner filed
yet another contempt application, being
Contempt Application No. 6315 of 2021
alleging non compliance of the order dated
29.11.2019 passed by the writ Court in
Writ Petition (A) No. 19190 of 2019. The
said
contempt
application
has
been
dismissed as not maintainable taking note
of the dismissal of the earlier Contempt
Application No. 2027 of 2020.

7. The question for consideration in
this Intra-Court Appeal is as to whether an
appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Rules of the Court will lay against an order
of a Single Judge passed in exercise of
contempt jurisdiction refusing to proceed
further with the contempt proceeding and
consigning the same to records.

8. To scope and ambit of maintainability of
an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 and also an Intra-Court
Appeal under the relevant rules of the High
Court in a case of an order passed in
contempt proceedings was considered in
the case of Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., and others versus
Chunilal Nanda and others, 2006 (5) SCC
7 All. Raj Bali Singh Vs. Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran & Anr.
315
399 and it was held that any direction
issued or decision made by the High Court
in contempt proceedings on the merits of a
dispute between the parties unless the same
is incidental to or inextricably connected
with the order punishing for contempt
would not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction
to punish for contempt" and, therefore,
would not be applicable under Section 19
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
However, such an order was held amenable
to a challenge in an Intra-Court Appeal
under the relevant rules of the High Court.
The position with regard to filing of
appeals against orders passed in contempt
proceedings was summarized in Para 11 of
the decision which is being reproduced as
under:

"11. The position emerging from these
decisions, in regard to appeals against
orders in contempt proceedings may be
summarized thus :

I. An appeal under section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.

II. Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order initiating proceedings for contempt
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

III. In a proceeding for contempt, the
High Court can decide whether any
contempt of court has been committed, and
if so, what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.

IV. Any direction issued or decision
made by the High Court on the merits of a
dispute between the parties, will not be in
the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for
contempt' and therefore, not appealable
under section 19 of CC Act. The only
exception is where such direction or
decision is incidental to or inextricably
connected with the order punishing for
contempt, in which event the appeal under
section 19 of the Act, can also encompass
the incidental or inextricably connected
directions.

V. If the High Court, for whatsoever
reason, decides an issue or makes any
direction, relating to the merits of the
dispute between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and
there is a provision for an intra-court
appeal), or by seeking special leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution of India (in other cases).

The
first
point
is
answered
accordingly."

9. From the above, it is more than clear
that an appeal under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 would be
only from an order or a decision imposing a
punishment for contempt. Unless there is
an order or decision on punishment, the
appeal under Section 19 (1) of the
Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 would not
be competent. So long as no punishment is
imposed by the learned Single Judge, it
could not be said to be exercising its
jurisdiction or power to punish for
contempt. Since in the case at hand, the
orders dated 16.12.2020 and 10.3.2022
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the learned Single Judge in
exercise of contempt jurisdiction merely
dismiss the contempt petition, such orders
are not amenable to appeal under Section
19 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971.
But whether such orders are amenable to an
appeal contemplated under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is to be
considered in the light of the provisions of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court which is quoted here-in-below:-

"5. Special appeal :- An appeal shall
lie to the Court from a judgment (not being
a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject to
the superintendence of the Court and not
being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction 66[or in
the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
Article
226
or
Article
227 of
the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in
the State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b)
of the Government or any officer or
authority, made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act of one Judge."

10. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Courts
provides for an appeal to the Court from a
"judgment". The meaning of "judgment"
for the purposes of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Rules of the Court came to be examined
by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Ashutosh Shrotriya and others versus Vice
Chancellor Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University
and others reported in AIR 2015 All 187
(DB). The Full Bench after considering
various judgments of the Apex Court
proceeded to formulate the governing
principles in Para 30 of the judgment which
is reproduced as under:

"We now formulate the governing
principles :

(i) The expression 'judgment' was
advisedly not defined in the Letters Patents
of various High Courts which conferred a
right of appeal against a judgment of a
Single Judge to a Division Bench of that
Court;

(ii) The expression 'judgment' is not to
be construed in the narrower sense in which
the expression 'judgment', 'decree' or 'order'
is defined in the CPC, but must receive a
broad and liberal construction;

(iii) Every order passed by a trial
Judge on the Original side of a High Court
exercising original jurisdiction or, for that
matter,
by
a
learned
Single
Judge
exercising the writ jurisdiction, would not
amount to a judgment. If every order were
construed to be a judgment, that would
result in opening a flood of appeals and
there would be no end to the number of
orders which could be appealable under the
Letters Patent;

(iv)
Any
interlocutory
order
to
constitute a judgment, must possess the
characteristic of finality in the sense that it
must adversely affect a valuable right of a
party or decide an important aspect of the
trial in an ancillary proceeding. In order to
constitute a 'judgment', the adverse effect
on a party must be direct and immediate
and not indirect or remote;

(v) In order to constitute a judgment,
an interlocutory order must: (a) decide a
matter of moment; or (b) affect vital and
7 All. Most Rev. John Augustine Inre 406 M/S 2015 Vs. Christ Church Mcconaghy School
 Society Lucknow & Ors.
317
valuable rights of the parties and must also
work
serious
injustice
to
the
party
concerned:
(vi) On the other hand, orders passed in the
course of the proceedings of a routine
nature, would not constitute a judgment
even if they result in some element of
inconvenience or hardship to one party or
the other. Routine orders which are passed
by a Single Judge to facilitate the progress
of a case may cause some element of
inconvenience or prejudice to a party but
do not constitute a 'judgment' because they
do not finally determine the rights or
obligations of the parties. Procedural orders
in aid of the progression of a case or to
facilitate a decision are not judgments."

11. Now considering the impugned
orders dated 16.12.2020 and 10.3.2022
against which the present appeal has been
preferred, we are of the opinion that the
orders cannot in any manner be said to
touch the merits of the controversy or the
dispute between the parties so as to be
deemed to be judgment or deemed to have
been issued in exercise of powers conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and thus, making them amenable to
an Intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

12. In view of the above discussion,
the Intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is held to
be not maintainable and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A317
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Special Appeal No. 233 of 2015

Most Rev. John Augustine Inre 406 M/S
2015 ...Appellant
Versus
Christ Church Mcconaghy School Society
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Prashant Singh Atal, Ankit Singh, Dr. L.P. Misra,
Pooja Singh, Pranjal Krishna, Santosh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Aniket Raj, Gaurav Mehrotra, Nadeem
Murtaza, Rahul Srivastava, Saurabh Shankar
Srivastav, Sudeep Seth

A. Special Law -Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Rules of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952-Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Section 4 & 4B - Saving Clause in British
Statutes(Application to India) Repeal Act,
1960, the learned Single Judge opined
that the British Statutes(Repeal) Act,
2004 received the assent of the President
of India on 20.02.2004 and con-joint
reading of the provisions of Section 3 of
Repeal Act, 1960, sub-sections (1) (2)(3)
and (4) of section 1 of the Act, 1949 as
well as Repeal Act, 2004 shows that what
was saved by Section 3 of the Act, 1960
was
the
application
of
any
statute
repealed by it in relation to India and to
persons and things in any way belonging
to or connected with India, in any country
to which India (Consequential Provision)
Act, 1949 extended, therefore, assuming
that
the
said
provision
saved
the
application of the Indian Church Act,
1927, the same stood repealed w.e.f.
20.02.2004 but this aspect of the matter
was
not
considered
by
the
Deputy
Registrar-Moreover the Deputy Registrar
did no at all consider the question as to
whether the CIBC was in existence
defacto or not and further neither the
appellant nor any other person claiming
under CIBC or CIPBC had staked any claim
to the management of the society since
1970, hence their defacto existence was