# Ramanand Pandey v. Hira Lal

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 660
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-30
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 1698 of 1990
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramanand-pandey-v-hira-lal-47920
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri
Akhileshwar
Mishra,
Sri
Aniruddh
Kumar, Sri S.N. Tripathi

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 125 (3) & 421 - Enforcement of
an order of maintenance u/s 125(3)
Cr.P.C. - it is open to a Magistrate to
enforce an order of maintenance, passed
u/s 125 Cr.P.C., by issuing a warrant to
the Collector to recover the same as
arrears of land revenue - It is the
discretion of the Magistrate, either to
issue a warrant for the levy of the amount
by attachment and sale of movables of the
defaulter under Section 421(1)(a) of the
Code, or to issue a warrant to the
Collector, authorizing him to realize the
amount as arrears of land revenue - It is
open to issue both kind of warrants
11 All. Ramanand Pandey Vs. Hira Lal
661
simultaneously - conjoint reading of the
provisions
of
Sections
125(3)
and
421(1) of the Code shows that it is open
to the Magistrate to enforce an order of
maintenance that remains uncomplied
with, for every breach of it, by the issue
of a warrant for levying the amount due
in the manner provided for levying fines
- Section 421(1) gives two options to
the Magistrate: firstly, under Clause (a)
of sub-Section (1) of Section 421, he
may issue a warrant for levying of the
amount by attachment and sale of any
movable
property
belonging
to
the
offender - In the context of maintenance
proceedings, the provision would bear
reference to the person in default of the
maintenance order in place of the
offender - Secondly, the Magistrate may
issue a warrant to the Collector of the
district, authorizing him to realize the
amount as arrears of land revenue from
the movable or immovable property, or
both, belonging to the defaulter - SubSection (3) of Section 421 obliges the
Collector, whenever a warrant is issued
to him, to recover any amount, that
qualifies for a fine, as arrears of land
revenue in accordance with law, treating
the warrant to be a recovery certificate
issued under the law relating to land
revenue recovery. (Para 23, 24, 26)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Manikraj, Ex. 1 is an impartial and
dependable
record
of
the
inter
se
geographical location of the plaintiffs' and
the defendant's properties, including the
suit property. The Trial Court, however, as
already remarked, has erred in regarding
these sale deeds as circumstantial evidence.
These are documents and dependable ones
at that. However, what is of utmost
relevance to the substantial question of law
under consideration is the fact that both
these documents have not at all been
considered by the Lower Appellate Court.
The Lower Appellate Court has rendered
opinion
bereft
of
reference
to
the
documentary evidence, which the Trial
Court thoroughly considered in reaching its
conclusion. The Trial Court's remark that
the sale deeds are not documents, but
circumstantial evidence, is legally unsound
and of no consequence. At the same time,
the Lower Appellate Court, by failing to
consider and refer to the documentary
evidence that the Trial Court did, has failed
to reverse categorical findings recorded by
the Trial Court about the location and
identity of the suit property.

41. In this view of the matter, the
Lower Appellate Court's judgment cannot
be regarded as a valid and effective
reversal of the Trial Court's judgment
rendered
after
consideration
of
all
relevant evidence.

42. Substantial Question of Law No.
3
is,
therefore,
answered
in
the
affirmative.

43. Since the Lower Appellate Court
has not effectively reversed the Trial
Court's judgment and set aside its findings,
based, amongst others, on documentary
evidence that the Lower Appellate Court
has
completely
ignored,
the
Lower
Appellate Court's judgment deserves to be
set aside and that of the Trial Court
restored.

44. In the result, this Second Appeal
succeeds and is allowed with costs
throughout. The impugned decree passed
by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside
and that of the Trial Court restored.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 660
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Second Appeal No. 1698 of 1990

Ramanand Pandey ...Appellant
Versus
Hira Lal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S. Chatharjee, Sri Santosh Kumar, Sri
Satya Deo Ojha, Sri Saurabh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri
Akhileshwar
Mishra,
Sri
Aniruddh
Kumar, Sri S.N. Tripathi

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 125 (3) & 421 - Enforcement of
an order of maintenance u/s 125(3)
Cr.P.C. - it is open to a Magistrate to
enforce an order of maintenance, passed
u/s 125 Cr.P.C., by issuing a warrant to
the Collector to recover the same as
arrears of land revenue - It is the
discretion of the Magistrate, either to
issue a warrant for the levy of the amount
by attachment and sale of movables of the
defaulter under Section 421(1)(a) of the
Code, or to issue a warrant to the
Collector, authorizing him to realize the
amount as arrears of land revenue - It is
open to issue both kind of warrants
11 All. Ramanand Pandey Vs. Hira Lal
661
simultaneously - conjoint reading of the
provisions
of
Sections
125(3)
and
421(1) of the Code shows that it is open
to the Magistrate to enforce an order of
maintenance that remains uncomplied
with, for every breach of it, by the issue
of a warrant for levying the amount due
in the manner provided for levying fines
- Section 421(1) gives two options to
the Magistrate: firstly, under Clause (a)
of sub-Section (1) of Section 421, he
may issue a warrant for levying of the
amount by attachment and sale of any
movable
property
belonging
to
the
offender - In the context of maintenance
proceedings, the provision would bear
reference to the person in default of the
maintenance order in place of the
offender - Secondly, the Magistrate may
issue a warrant to the Collector of the
district, authorizing him to realize the
amount as arrears of land revenue from
the movable or immovable property, or
both, belonging to the defaulter - SubSection (3) of Section 421 obliges the
Collector, whenever a warrant is issued
to him, to recover any amount, that
qualifies for a fine, as arrears of land
revenue in accordance with law, treating
the warrant to be a recovery certificate
issued under the law relating to land
revenue recovery. (Para 23, 24, 26)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Om Parkash Vs Vidhya Devi, 1991 SCC
OnLine P&H 387

2. Ramakrishnan T.K. VsC.N. Subhadra & anr. ,
2009 SCC OnLine Ker 6397

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal,
arising out of a suit for declaration and
permanent prohibitory injunction.

2. The facts giving rise to this
appeal are these:

The plaintiff-appellant, Rama Nand,
who shall hereinafter be referred to as the
''plaintiff', instituted O.S. No. 390 of 1985
in
the
Ex-Court
of
Munsif
Havali,
Varanasi, seeking a declaration to the effect
that the proceedings of revenue sale dated
04.12.1982 and the sale letter based on it
relating to land, detailed at the foot of the
plaint, be declared void and a decree of
permanent injunction granted, restraining
the defendant-respondent, Hira Lal (for
short, ''the defendant') from interfering with
the plaintiff's possession over the suit
property or changing its nature and
character.

3. The plaintiff's case is that Smt.
Usha Devi brought proceedings against him
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of
the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar
seeking award of maintenance. In the
maintenance case aforesaid, the Magistrate
passed
an
ex
parte
order,
granting
maintenance to Smt. Usha Devi on
13.01.1982. The ex parte maintenance
order dated 13.01.1982 was passed against
the plaintiff. The plaintiff, upon coming to
know of the ex parte order, made an
application to the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar, seeking to set aside the sale.
The Magistrate on 17.05.1982 allowed the
plaintiff's application and set aside the ex
parte maintenance order dated 13.01.1982.
In the meantime, on the basis of the ex
parte maintenance order dated 13.01.1982,
the defendant, in connivance with the
Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar, Varanasi,
brought the plaintiff's immovable property,
detailed at the foot of the plaint (for short,
'the suit property') to sale on 04.12.1982.
The plaintiff's wife applied for the recovery
of dues under the ex parte maintenance
order. The plaintiff did not know anything
about the revenue sale held, creating rights
in favour of the defendant.
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. It is the plaintiff's case that after
the maintenance order dated 13.01.1982
had been set aside on 17.05.1982, sale of
the plaintiff's property on 04.12.1982 was
one made without jurisdiction, as there was
no maintenance order in existence then to
execute. It was also pleaded that the
proceedings of the revenue sale are vitiated,
because there was no proclamation by beat
of
drum,
nor
proceedings
taken
in
accordance with law. The sale is fraudulent
and illegal. The further case is that the
defendant, on the basis of the revenue sale
concluded in his favour, is moving to
forcefully dispossess the plaintiff.

5. The defendant put in a written
statement, pleading that he had purchased
the suit property in the revenue sale held,
wherein
there
was
no
illegality
or
irregularity. The defendant on 04.12.1982,
upon payment of sale consideration, that
was fetched in the auction proceedings,
purchased the suit property bona fide. He
had
paid
a
total
consideration
of
Rs.10,000/-. The proceedings of the auction
sale have been confirmed and the sale
certificate
issued
in
favour
of
the
defendant. The legality or irregularity in
conducting the sale cannot be questioned
before the Civil Court. The defendant never
connived with Smt. Usha Devi nor did he
procure a judgment, based on any kind of
conspiracy with Smt. Usha Devi, or got the
revenue sale held in furtherance of any
conspiracy, as alleged by the plaintiff. The
Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar did not
take proceedings of the revenue sale in a
manner that is bogus or fraudulent. The
defendant, Hira Lal never had knowledge
of the fact about the maintenance order
passed ex parte under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
against the plaintiff being set aside. The
further case is that even if the order of
maintenance ex parte was set aside, the
revenue sale held on 04.12.1982, cannot be
set aside, because the defendant is a bona
fide purchaser for value without notice and
further the auction sale has been confirmed.

6. The defendant has averred that
the plaintiff did not object to the auction
proceedings
before
the
Revenue
Authorities. The Court has no jurisdiction
to set aside the auction sale. The mutation
order has been made on the basis of the
auction sale directing mutation of the
defendant's name over the suit property on
11.01.1985, whereagainst the plaintiff had
objected. His objections were, however,
rejected on 30.01.1985. The suit is barred
by limitation. The suit property is in the
ownership possession of the defendant. The
suit is barred by the provisions of Section
331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the
suit.

7. On the pleadings of parties, the
following issues were struck (translated
into English from Hindi):

(1) Whether on the grounds set
forth in the plaint, the proceedings of
auction sale dated 04.12.1982 are illegal
and void?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to the relief of injunction?

(3) Whether this Court has no
jurisdiction to try the suit?

(4)
Whether
the
suit
is
undervalued and the court-fee insufficient?

(5) To what relief is the plaintiff
entitled to?

8. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff
examined himself as PW-1 and one Bechan
Mishra as PW-2. The plaintiff in his
documentary
evidence
filed
three
documents vide a list, bearing Paper No. 8-
11 All. Ramanand Pandey Vs. Hira Lal
663
Ga, one document vide list, bearing Paper
No. 33-Ga, another three documents vide
Paper No. 53-Ga and two more documents
vide list, bearing Paper No. 60-Ga.

9.
 The defendant
examined
himself as DW-1. In his documentary
evidence, he filed some 11 documents vide
list, bearing Paper No. 17-Ga, another 9
documents vide list, bearing Paper No. 37Ga and 14 more documents vide list,
bearing Paper No. 123-Ga.

10. The issue, about the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court to try the suit, was not
pressed
before
the
Trial
Court
on
24.12.1987, and the issue of valuation was
decided on 28.05.1986. These issues were
dealt with at interlocutory stages and a
record of determination thereof forms part
of the Trial Court's judgment. It was Issue
No.1, that was the substantial issue, on
which event in the suit would turn. The
Trial Court in its judgment has blamed the
conduct
of
the
plaintiff
in
not
communicating the order dated 17.05.1982,
setting aside the ex parte maintenance
order dated 13.01.1982 to the Collector,
Varanasi, as the reason why the revenue
sale was held and the impugned sale
certificate issued in the defendant's favour.
The Trial Court also held that the defendant
was a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice, whose rights ought to be protected.
Nevertheless, the Trial Court held that the
proceedings of the sale held on 04.12.1982
were illegal and void, but the decree of the
Trial Court would be effective only upon
the plaintiff paying the defendant a sum of
Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from the date of the
auction sale in the defendant's favour. The
suit was, therefore, decreed in part vide
judgment and decree dated 22.04.1989
passed by the 12th Additional Munsif,
Varanasi with a conditional injunction that
the injunction would become effective after
the plaintiff paid the entire sum of
Rs.10,000/- together with interest as
directed.

11. Upon the defendant's appeal
carried to the District Judge of Varanasi,
being Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1989, the
learned 9th Additional District Judge,
Varanasi vide his judgment and decree
dated 14.05.1990, allowed the appeal, set
aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree
dated 22.04.1989, and dismissed the suit.
There was a cross-objection also preferred
by the defendant before the Lower
Appellate Court, which too was dismissed.

12. Dissatisfied with the judgment
and decree passed by the Lower Appellate
Court, the plaintiff has moved this Court,
invoking our jurisdiction under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure.

13. This appeal was admitted to
hearing vide order dated 09.11.1990,
without any substantial question of law
being formulated. Before proceeding with
the hearing, therefore, based on the
submissions of parties, particularly, the
learned Counsel for the appellant, this
Court formulated the following substantial
question
of
law
vide
order
dated
26.02.2020:

Whether it is open to a Magistrate
to enforce an order of maintenance passed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by forwarding a
recovery certificate to the Collector, and to
recover the sum of money due under the
maintenance order as arrears of land
revenue?

14. Heard Mr. S.D. Ojha, learned
Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr.
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
S.N. Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Akhileshwar Mishra, learned Counsel
for the defendant-respondent.

15. The Lower Appellate Court went
into wholesome detail of evidence bearing
on the issues of fact and law involved and
held that a copy of the order dated
17.05.1982, setting aside the ex parte
maintenance order dated 13.01.1982, had
not been produced in evidence by the
plaintiff. Rather, there is a record of a later
order dated 20.09.1982, again ordering ex
parte maintenance, which bears Paper No.
34-Ga. The Lower Appellate Court also
took note of some orders made by this
Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.
264 of 1983, where the auction sale of the
suit property in execution of the ex parte
maintenance
order,
which
was
then
awaiting recall, was challenged. The Lower
Appellate Court has recorded that the said
482 Application was rejected by this Court
vide order dated 22.10.1983 and a certified
copy of the order was on record as Paper
No. 26-Ga. This Court too has found on
record a document, marked Ex. A1.

16. The Lower Appellate Court has
held further that the plaintiff has urged a
case that proceedings of the auction were
illegal, but if that were so, the plaintiff had
the right to move the Revenue Authorities
and get the sale set aside. This has not been
done. The case of a conspiracy between the
plaintiff's wife and the defendant has too
been disbelieved by the Lower Appellate
Court in the absence of the slightest of
evidence. What has further been observed
is that if the plaintiff's case of the ex parte
maintenance order being set aside is
believed, though there is no evidence about
it, the defendant is a bona fide purchaser.
The auction sale in his favour has been
confirmed. In such circumstances, the
consequence of the sale, even if it were set
aside, would not be to deprive auction
purchaser of his rights in the suit property.

17. The Lower Appellate Court has
also recorded facts to the effect that
pursuant to the sale certificate, the
defendant's name has been mutated in the
revenue records, of which certified copies
are on record. There are also records of
Khasra across a period of three years,
showing recorded possession in favour of
the defendant. There are also irrigation
receipts brought on record to show that the
defendant is in possession.

18. It is on all these findings that
the Lower Appellate Court has reached the
conclusion that it did.

19. Mr. S.D. Ojha, learned Counsel
for the plaintiff at the hearing before this
Court has but logically confined himself to
the substantial question of law, on which
this appeal has been admitted and heard.
He submits that it was not open to the
Magistrate, who had the execution of the
ex parte maintenance order before him, to
enforce it by forwarding a recovery
certificate to the Collector. As such, all
proceedings
taken
by
the
Revenue
Authorities at Varanasi, pursuant to the
recovery
certificate
issued
by
the
Magistrate for enforcement of the ex parte
maintenance
order,
are
without
jurisdiction.

20. Mr. S.N. Tripathi, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Akhileshwar Mishra,
learned Counsel for the defendant submits
that there is jurisdiction under the law
available to the Magistrate to issue a
recovery certificate to the Collector by
virtue of the provisions of Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C.
11 All. Ramanand Pandey Vs. Hira Lal
665

21. Upon hearing the learned Counsel
for parties with reference to the substantial
question of law involved, this Court thinks
that a reference to the provisions of Section
125(3) Cr.P.C. is necessary. Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C. reads:

125. Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents.--(1) x x x x

(2) x x x x x

(3) If any person so ordered fails
without sufficient cause to comply with the
order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for
levying the amount due in the manner
provided for levying fines, and may
sentence such person, for the whole or any
part of each month's allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding, as the case
may be, remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one month
or until payment if sooner made:

Provided that no warrant shall be
issued for the recovery of any amount due
under this section unless application be
made to the Court to levy such amount
within a period of one year from the date
on which it became due:

Provided further that if such
person offers to maintain his wife on
condition of her living with him, and she
refuses to live with him, such Magistrate
may consider any grounds of refusal stated
by her, and may make an order under this
section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so
doing.

Explanation.--If a husband has
contracted marriage with another woman or
keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to
be just ground for his wife's refusal to live
with him.

(4) x x x x

(5) x x x x
(emphasis by Court)

22. Now, the manner of levying
fines under the Code of Criminal Procedure
finds place in Section 421(1) of the said
Code. Section 421 reads:

421. Warrant for levy of fine.--(1)
When an offender has been sentenced to
pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence
may take action for the recovery of the fine
in either or both of the following ways, that
is to say, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of
the amount by attachment and sale of any
movable
property
belonging
to
the
offender;

(b) issue a warrant to the
Collector of the district, authorising him to
realise the amount as arrears of land
revenue from the movable or immovable
property, or both, of the defaulter:

Provided that, if the sentence
directs that in default of payment of the
fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and
if such offender has undergone the whole
of such imprisonment in default, no Court
shall issue such warrant unless, for special
reasons to be recorded in writing, it
considers it necessary so to do, or unless it
has made an order for the payment of
expenses or compensation out of the fine
under Section 357.

(2) The State Government may
make rules regulating the manner in which
warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
are to be executed, and for the summary
determination of any claims made by any
person other than the offender in respect of
any property attached in execution of such
warrant.

(3) Where the Court issues a
warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of
sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the amount in accordance with the law
relating to recovery of arrears of land
revenue, as if such warrant were a
certificate issued under such law:

Provided that no such warrant
shall be executed by the arrest or detention
in prison of the offender.(emphasis by
Court)

23. A conjoint reading of the
provisions of Sections 125(3) and 421(1) of
the Code shows that it is open to the
Magistrate
to
enforce
an
order
of
maintenance that remains uncomplied with,
for every breach of it, by the issue of a
warrant for levying the amount due in the
manner provided for levying fines. Section
421(1) gives two options to the Magistrate:
firstly, under Clause (a) of sub-Section (1)
of Section 421, he may issue a warrant for
levying of the amount by attachment and
sale of any movable property belonging to
the offender. In the context of maintenance
proceedings, the provision would bear
reference to the person in default of the
maintenance order in place of the offender.
Secondly, the Magistrate may issue a
warrant to the Collector of the district,
authorizing him to realize the amount as
arrears of land revenue from the movable
or immovable property, or both, belonging
to the defaulter. Sub-Section (3) of Section
421 obliges the Collector, whenever a
warrant is issued to him, to recover any
amount, that qualifies for a fine, as arrears
of land revenue in accordance with law,
treating the warrant to be a recovery
certificate issued under the law relating to
land revenue recovery.

24. It is the discretion of the
Magistrate, before whom an application for
enforcement of the maintenance order
comes up, either to issue a warrant for the
levy of the amount by attachment and sale
of movables of the defaulter under Section
421(1)(a) of the Code, or to issue a warrant
to the Collector, authorizing him to realize
the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is
open to issue both kind of warrants
simultaneously also. Acknowledgment of
the Magistrate's power to simultaneously
issue both kind of warrants or either of
them, under Section 421(1)(a) or 421(1)(b)
is there, albeit in a different context in Om
Parkash v. Vidhya Devi, 1991 SCC
OnLine P&H 387. In Om Parkash
(supra), it has been held:

4. ............

The perusal of the above-quoted
section 421 reveals that there are two
methods for levying fine and the Court has
been empowered to opt for either of these
two modes or both at one and the same
time. One of these modes provided under
sub-section (1)(a) is to issue a warrant for
levy of the amount by attachment and sale
of movable property belonging to the
offender and the other being issuance of a
warrant to the Collector authorising him to
realise the amount as arrears of land
revenue from the movable or immovable
property, or both. In the case in hand, the
trial Court had not resorted to any of these
coercive measures for the recovery of the
arrears of maintenance allowance although
it is mentioned in the impugned order of
the trial Court that the husband is a man of
means. Thus, legally the impugned order of
the trial Court being not sustainable calls
for quashment.

25. Again, the principle that the
Magistrate, before whom a maintenance
order
comes
for
enforcement,
can
simultaneously issue both kind of warrants
under Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of
the Code, was wholesomely endorsed by
the Kerala High Court in Ramakrishnan
11 All. HBA Offshore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Samsung Heavy Indus. India Pvt. Ltd. U.P.
667
T.K. v. C.N. Subhadra & another, 2009
SCC OnLine Ker 6397, where it was held:

15. The express language of
Secs. 421(1)(a) and (b) Cr. P.C. is that
either or both of the following ways (ie.,
issue a warrant for attachment of movable
and issue of a warrant to the Collector to
attach the movable and immovable
properties) can be resorted to by the
court. I find the said submission to be
very
impressive.
This
court
in
Nithiyanandan and Kuttappan had no
occasion to consider that question. The
express language employee by the Code
makes it very clear that when it comes to
levy of fines the court is no obliged to
resort to both the methods under Secs.
421(1)(a) and (b) Cr. P.C. Either of the
two or both can be pursued by the court
in its discretion.

26. Here, the plaintiff questions the
jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue a
warrant to the Collector for the recovery
of the amount of maintenance in default
as arrears of land revenue, because he
says that the Magistrate had no such
power. The said proposition is only stated
to be rejected. The provisions of Section
125(3) and Section 421 read conjointly
are a complete answer to the plaintiff's
denial of jurisdiction with the Magistrate
to issue a warrant to the Collector for
recovering the defaulted maintenance as
arrears of land revenue.

27. The substantial question of law
framed is, accordingly, answered in the
affirmative and it is held that the
Magistrate has power to enforce an
order of maintenance passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. by issuing a warrant
to the Collector to recover the same as
arrears of land revenue.

28. No other point was pressed.

29. The appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs.

30. Let a decree be drawn up,
accordingly.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 667
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Appeal U/S 37 OF Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 No. 94 of 2022

HBA Offshore Pte. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Samsung Heavy Indus. India Pvt. Ltd. U.P.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vinayak Mithal, Sri Zoeb Cutleruywala, Sri
Manish Goyal(Sr. Counsel).

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Shashi Nandan

A. Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,
1996-Sections
37,
9
&
11(4)-
maintainability of-section 9 application
was rejected-learned court below held
that
the
LOI
was
not
concluded
agreement, and that under a contract
which is determinable at any event
provided in the LOI, the action of the
parties cannot be enforced through the
Court and the same is barred by provisions
of section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 and after the LOI was held to be null
and void the respondents had entered into
a contract with third party which is before
the filing of the application u/s 9 of the
Act-All pleas and contentions are left open
for
being
raised
before
the
arbitral
tribunal as provided in the LOI itself-