# Sanjay Gupta v. Suresh Kumar Mishra & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 1025
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-05
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 2511 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-gupta-v-suresh-kumar-mishra-anr-50491
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 227 - The Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 Sections 34 & 36 -The Code of
Civil Procedure,1908-Section 47- Order
21- Objections under Section 47 of the Code
are not maintainable in proceedings for the
purposes of execution or enforceability of an
arbitration award but nonetheless objections
raised by judgment debtor which do not touch
upon the merits of the award or raise questions
which cannot be raised under Section 34 of the
Act of 1996 can very well be raised in such
proceedings and to be adjudicated upon---
Executing court is directed to decide the
objections raised by petitioner excluding those
pertaining to insufficiency of stamp duty and
decree pertaining to movable property by the
award. (Para 19, 20 & 21)

Petition partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Sanjay Gupta Vs. Suresh Kumar Mishra & Anr.
1025
shall be entitled to get the same executed
through the Executing Court, in accordance
with law. In case non-deposit of the amount
by the plaintiffs-respondents in time as
provided
herein
then
the
plaintiffsrespondents shall not be entitled to get the
sale-deed in their favour.

75.

Subject
to
the
aforesaid
modification in the judgment and decree
dated 02.12.1992 passed in Civil Appeal
No.37 of 1992 which is affirmed, this Court
does not find merit in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs. The record of the lower Court shall
be returned expeditiously.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 1025
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 2511 of 2023

Sanjay Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Kumar Mishra & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prashant Singh Gaur, Vikrant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Virendra Mishra

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 227 - The Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 Sections 34 & 36 -The Code of
Civil Procedure,1908-Section 47- Order
21- Objections under Section 47 of the Code
are not maintainable in proceedings for the
purposes of execution or enforceability of an
arbitration award but nonetheless objections
raised by judgment debtor which do not touch
upon the merits of the award or raise questions
which cannot be raised under Section 34 of the
Act of 1996 can very well be raised in such
proceedings and to be adjudicated upon---
Executing court is directed to decide the
objections raised by petitioner excluding those
pertaining to insufficiency of stamp duty and
decree pertaining to movable property by the
award. (Para 19, 20 & 21)

Petition partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Y.B. Patil & ors. Vs Y.L. Patil reported in AIR
1977 SC 392 : (1976) 4 SCC 66

2. Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs ICDS Ltd.
reported in (2006) 13 SCC 322

3. Government of India Vs Vedanta Limited &
ors., reported in (2006) 12 SCC 642

4. Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LCC Vs
Future Retail Ltd & ors., reported in (2022) 1
SCC 209

5. M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs M/s Maharai
Educational Trust, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine
All 1866

6. M/s Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs
M/s Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt.
Ltd.,
reported
in
MANU/UP/1432/2022[Civil
Revision No.53 of 2022]

7. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs National Research
Development Corporation, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 330

8. Punjab St. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. &
anr.Vs Atwal Rice & General Mills (2017) 8 SCC
116

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr.Prashant Singh Gaur and
Mr.Vikrant Singh, learned counsel for
petitioner
and
Mr.
Virendra
Mishra,
assisted by Ms. Shraddha Mishra, learned
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for opposite party no.1. Opposite
party
no.2
being
merely
the
Court
concerned and being a proforma party,
notices are dispensed with.

2. Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed
challenging order dated 01.04.2023 passed
in Misc. Case No.48 of 2023(Execution
Case No.94 of 2020) whereby objections
preferred by petitioner being judgment
debtor, purportedly under Section 47 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been
rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the parties to the dispute
entered into a builders agreement dated
10.11.1996 with regard to the property in
question but due to disputes arising out of
the aforesaid agreement, the same was
referred for adjudication to the sole
arbitrator in an application filed under
Section
11(6)
of
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred
to as the Act of 1996). Award in the same
was pronounced on 12.01.2007 against
petitioner
and
19
others.
Father
of
petitioner filed an Application under
Section 34 of the Act of 1996 bearing
Regular Suit No.11 of 2007 which was
dismissed by means of judgment and
order dated 25.07.2012. Against aforesaid
judgment
and
order,
Appeal
under
Section 37 of the Act was preferred
bearing F.A.F.O. No.1040 of 2012 in
which initially interim orders were passed
but the same was dismissed in default of
appearance on 30.01.2017. Restoration
Application was also dismissed for want
of prosecution whereafter a second
application for restoration was filed. The
same was also dismissed although a third
Restoration
Application
is
pending
consideration.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that subsequently an Application
for execution of award was filed on
03.11.2017 in which petitioner being
judgment debtor, filed an Application
styled to be under Section 47 of the Code.
It is submitted that the award of arbitrator
was with regard to movable as well as
immovable properties with movable being
in the nature of a money decree. It is
submitted that in the objections filed by
petitioner, it was specifically stated that the
relief as being prayed for in execution
proceedings was not in consonance with
the award with regard to immovable
property inasmuch as possession of the
properties being sought in execution
proceedings were not decreed in favour of
the decree holder. It is further submitted
that objections regarding insufficiency of
stamp duty pertaining to the award were
also raised in the objections. Learned
counsel for petitioner submits that in the
award,
learned
sole
arbitrator
has
specifically not awarded possession of five
shops in the property in question and
therefore
their
claim
in
execution
proceedings would amount to granting a
relief which has not been granted in the
award itself. It is submitted that however
by means of impugned order, objections
regarding insufficiency of stamp duty were
rejected on the ground that the aforesaid
objections were earlier raised and rejected
and, therefore, there is no question of
adjudicating the same again. It is submitted
that the other objections raised by the
petitioner were rejected only on the ground
that an Application under Section 47 of the
Code is not maintainable in proceedings
seeking execution of an arbitration award.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that once Section 36 of the Act of
1996 specifically provides execution of an
7 All. Sanjay Gupta Vs. Suresh Kumar Mishra & Anr.
1027
award in accordance with the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure in the same
manner as if it was a decree of the court,
then naturally the execution has to be
sought under Order 21 of the Code due to
which objections under Section 47 of the
Code are clearly maintainable. It is thus
submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure
cannot be made applicable in a piecemeal
basis and either applies in its entirety or not
at all. It is therefore, submitted that once
Section 36 of the Act of 1996 clearly
prescribes enforcement of the arbitration
award in terms of Code of Civil Procedure,
all other provisions of the Code would
therefore
be
attracted
including
the
provisions of Section 47 of the Code.

6. To buttress his submissions, learned
counsel has placed reliance on judgments
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd. and another v. Atwal Rice &
General Mills (2017) 8 SCC 116; Firm
Rajasthan
Udyog
and
others
v.
Hindustan Engineering and Industries
Ltd., reported in (2020) 6 SCC 660; and
M. Anasuya Devi and another v. M.
Manik Reddy and others, reported in
(2003)8 SCC 565.

7. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party has refuted
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner with the submission that
provisions of the Act of 1996 clearly
indicates that an arbitration award is to be
enforced as if it were a decree and
therefore, the arbitration award does not
come within the definition of a decree as
envisaged under Section 2(2) of the Code
of Civil Procedure since it would only have
the status of a deemed decree due to which
objections under Section 47 are clearly
barred. It is submitted that by virtue of
Section 36 of the Act of 1996, it has only
been prescribed that, only for the purposes
of enforcibility of the award, recourse can
be taken to Order 21 of the Code while the
application itself would be deemed to be
under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 and not
under Order 21 of the Code. As such, it is
submitted that the basic purpose of
applicability of the Code is only for
providing a procedure for enforcement of
the award and the Code itself has not been
made applicable in its entirety due to which
objections under Section 47 of the Code
would not be maintainable as has rightly
been held in the impugned order. Learned
counsel has placed reliance on following
decisions:-

(1) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paramjeet Singh Patheja v.
ICDS Ltd. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 322;

(2) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Morgan Securities & Credit (P)
Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. reported in
(2006) 12 SCC 642;

(3) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Government of India v. Vedanta
Limited and others, reported in (2006) 12
SCC 642;

(4) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amazon.Com NV Investment
Holdings LCC v. Future Retail Ltd and
others, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 209;

(5) Decision of this Court in M/s
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. v.
M/s
Chopra
Fabricators
and
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., reported in
MANU/UP/1432/2022[Civil
Revision
No.53 of 2022];

(6) Decision of Delhi High Court
in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. National
Research
Development
Corporation,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 330;

(7) Decision of Delhi High Court
in M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited v. M/s
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maharai Educational Trust, reported in
2010 SCC OnLine All 1866;

8. Upon consideration of submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perusal of material on record, it is evident
that objections to the execution proceedings
were filed by petitioner being judgment
debtor in Execution Case no.94 of 2020 in
the shape of objections under Section 47 of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
The
objections pertaining to deficiency of stamp
duty in the award as raised by petitioner
was rejected by means of impugned order
on the ground that such an objection was
earlier raised by petitioner and was rejected
on 03.12.2020 whereafter it was reiterated
and again rejected on 17.10.2022. It is
admitted that the aforesaid two orders have
not been challenged by petitioner, which
therefore
have
attained
finality
and
therefore rejection of such objections
having been raised for the third time and
being rejected on that ground, are not
required to be interfered with particularly
in view of the settled law that principles of
resjudicata are applicable at various stages
of the same proceedings as has been held in
Y.B. Patil & others v. Y.L. Patil reported
in AIR 1977 SC 392 : (1976) 4 SCC 66.

9. So far as objections raised by
petitioner with regard to enforcibility of
award pertaining to immovable property
are concerned, the same have been rejected
by impugned order on the ground that
objections under Section 47 of the Code are
not maintainable in execution proceedings
for the purposes of enforcement of
arbitration award.

10. So far as the question of
maintainability of objections under Section
47 of the Code in execution proceedings for
the purposes of enforcement of arbitration
award are concerned, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in a plethora of judgments starting
from Paramjeet Singh Patheja(supra)
onward has clearly held that awards
rendered in arbitration proceedings are not
covered under the definition of decree as
defined under Section 2(2) of the Code and
therefore objections which can be taken
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 cannot
be taken in execution proceedings taking
resort to Section 47 of the Code. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as
follows:-

"28. It is settled by decisions of
this Court that the words ?as if? in fact
show the distinction between two things
and such words are used for a limited
purpose. They further show that a legal
fiction must be limited to the purpose for
which it was created.'

"29.Section 36 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is inpari
materiawith Section 15 of the 1899 Act, is
set out hereinbelow:"

"36.Enforcement.?Where the time
for making an application to set aside the
arbitral award under Section 34 has
expired, or such application having been
made, it has been refused,the award shall
be enforced under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it
were a decree of the court."
(emphasis supplied)

In fact, Section 36 goes further
than Section 15 of the 1899 Act and makes
it clear beyond doubt that enforceability is
only to be under CPC. It rules out any
argument that enforceability as a decree
can be sought under any other law or that
initiating insolvency proceeding is a
manner of enforcing a decree under CPC.
Therefore the contention of the respondents
that, an award rendered under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if
7 All. Sanjay Gupta Vs. Suresh Kumar Mishra & Anr.
1029
not challenged within the requisite period,
the same becomes final and binding as
provided under Section 35 and the same
can be enforced as a decree as it is as
binding and conclusive as provided under
Section 36 and that there is no distinction
between an award and a decree, does not
hold water.' "

"42.The
words
?as
if?
demonstrate that award and decree or
order are two different things. The legal
fiction created is for the limited purpose of
enforcement as a decree. The fiction is not
intended to make it a decree for all
purposes under all statutes, whether State
or Central. "

11. The aforesaid proposition of law
has also been enunciated by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Government of India v.
Vedanta
Limited(supra)
as
well
as
Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings
LCC(supra), which also holds that an
application to enforce an award is in fact an
Application under the Arbitration Act and
not an Application under Order 21 of the
Code. The relevant portion of the judgment
is as follows:-

"77.
The
application
under
Sections 47 and 49 for enforcement of the
foreign award, is a substantive petition
filed under the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is a
well-settled position that the Arbitration
Act is a self-contained code. [Fuerst Day
Lawson Ltd. v.Jindal Exports Ltd., (2011) 8
SCC 333 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 178;Kandla
Export Corpn. v.OCI Corpn., (2018) 14
SCC
715
:
(2018)
4
SCC
(Civ)
664;Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Co.
v.Glencore Grain Rotterdam, 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 3564 : (2009) 164 DLT
197;Usha Drager (P) Ltd. v.Dragerwerk
AG, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2975 : (2010)
170 DLT 628;Sumitomo Corpn. v.CDC
Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd., (2008)
4 SCC 91;Conros Steels (P) Ltd. v.Lu Qin
(Hong Kong) Co. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine
Bom 2305 : (2015) 1 Arb LR 463 : (2015) 2
Bom CR 1] The application under Section
47 is not an application filed under any of
the provisions of Order 21 CPC, 1908. The
application is filed before the appropriate
High Court for enforcement, which would
take recourse to the provisions of Order 21
CPC only for the purposes of execution of
the foreign award as a deemed decree. The
bar contained in Section 5, which excludes
an application filed under any of the
provisions of Order 21 CPC, would not be
applicable to a substantive petition filed
under
the
Arbitration
Act,
1996.
Consequently,
a
party
may
file
an
application
under
Section
5
for
condonation of delay, if required in the
facts and circumstances of the case."

12. The same analogy has been
followed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court
in
M/s
Larsen
&
Toubro
Limited(supra) which has also been
followed by another coordinate Bench in
M/s Bharat Pumps and Compressors
Ltd.(supra) as well as by Delhi High Court in
Hindustan Zinc Ltd.(supra). Even in
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for
petitioner in Punjab State Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd. (supra), it has been held
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph
27.3 that all objections referred and ought to
have been raised by the respondents before
arbitrator or under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 cannot be allowed to be raised in
execution once the award became final and
attained finality as a decree of a Civil Court.
The relevant paragraph of aforesaid judgment
is as follows:-

"27.3. Thirdly, all the objections
referred above ought to have been raised
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the respondents before the arbitrator
or/and the Additional District Judge under
Section 34 of the Act but certainly none of
them could be allowed to be raised in
execution once the award became final and
attained finality as decree of the civil court.
In other words, having regard to the nature
of objections, it is clear that such
objections were not capable of being tried
in execution proceedings to challenge the
award. It is for the reason that they were on
facts and pertained to the merits of the
controversy, which stood decided by the
arbitrator resulting in passing of an award.
None of the objections were in relation to
the jurisdiction of the court affecting the
root of the very passing of the decree. If the
executing
court
had
probed
these
objections then it would have travelled
behind
the
decree,
which
was
not
permissible in law. An inquiry into facts,
which ought to have been done in a suit or
in an appeal arising out of the suit or in
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act,
cannot be held in execution proceedings in
relation to such award/decree."

13. Upon perusal of aforesaid
judgments, the single thread running
through all of them with regard to
maintainability of objections under Section
47 of the Code is that such objections are
not maintainable in execution proceedings
for the enforcement of an arbitration award
on the twin analogies that: (a) an arbitration
award not having been passed by a ?court?,
does not come within definition of a decree
as envisaged under Section 2(2) of the
Code; and (b) once the award attains
finality, objections thereto can be taken
only in proceedings under Section 34 of the
Act of 1996 and the same cannot be
bypassed
to
be
taken
in
execution
proceedings
for
the
purposes
of
enforcement of the award.

14. So far as aforesaid twin analogies
are concerned, it is now settled law as seen
herein above that award passed by the
arbitrator does not come within definition
of a decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the
Code and therefore objections under
Section 47 of the Code are clearly not
maintainable in execution proceedings for
the purposes of enforcement of the
arbitration award. Nonetheless, the second
aspect of the matter on which it has been
held that application under Section 47 of
the Code would not be maintainable arises
in such situations where objections to the
award can be taken in proceedings under
Section 34 of the Act of 1996. As a natural
corollary, objections which cannot be taken
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 can
very well be examined and decided by the
executing court if they do not touch upon
the merits of the award. In case these twin
conditions apply, a judgment debtor cannot
be left remediless.

15. A situational aspect with regard to
aforesaid proposition would be in a case
such as the present one where objections
have been taken by judgment debtor to the
fact that by means of execution application,
a relief which was never awarded is being
sought. In such a situation where objection
is being raised to aforesaid extent, naturally
cause of action arises only upon filing of an
execution application for enforcibility of
award and in such circumstances there can
be no occasion for the judgment debtor to
raise such objections to award under
Section 34 of the Act of 1996. However, in
such circumstances also, a word of caution
is required that such objections would be
maintainable only in case they do not touch
upon the merits of the award or where such
objections can be taken under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996. Although for the purposes
of enforcibility of an arbitration award in
7 All. Sanjay Gupta Vs. Suresh Kumar Mishra & Anr.
1031
terms of Section 36 of the Act of 1996,
recourse can be taken to Order 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, but in the
circumstances delineated herein above, the
execution court, in the considered opinion
of this court, would have an inherent right
even exercising such powers under Section
151 of the Code to examine that such
objections are raised by judgment debtor
which do not pertain to merits of the award
or which cannot be taken under Section 34
of the Act of 1996.

16. The aforesaid proposition would
find support from judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Punjab State Civil
Supplies Corporation Ltd.(supra) in which it
has been held that it is a well-settled principle
of law that the executing court has to execute
the decree as it is and cannot go behind the
decree but can undertake limited enquiry
regarding jurisdictional issue which goes to
root of the decree and has the effect of
rendering the decree a nullity. Aforesaid
enunciation of law although would not be
completely applicable where enforcibility of
an arbitration award is concerned but
nonetheless the aspect that the executing court
can only execute the decree as it is and cannot
go behind the decree would still be applicable.

17. In Hindustan Zinc Ltd.(supra),
Delhi High Court has also held that for
execution or enforcibility of an arbitration
award, the court can draw sustenance and
guidance from the principles underlying the
provisions contained in Order 21 of the
Code as also that challenge to award on its
merits cannot be made particularly when
the scope of objections pertain to extending
such objections to trial of questions
touching upon the merits of award.

18. Even in Paramjeet Singh
Patheja(supra), it has been held that
objections under Section 47 of the Code are
not maintainable in proceedings for the
purposes of enforcement of an arbitration
award. Aforesaid enunciation of law is
particularly on the aspect that validity of
the award can be raised only in proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and not
by taking resort to Section 47 of the Code.

19. In view of discussions made
herein above, as such it is evident that
although objections under Section 47 of the
Code are not maintainable in proceedings
for
the
purposes
of
execution
or
enforcibility of an arbitration award but
nonetheless objections raised by judgment
debtor which do not touch upon the merits
of the award or raise questions which
cannot be raised under Section 34 of the
Act of 1996 can very well be raised in such
proceedings and to be adjudicated upon.

20. In terms of aforesaid, it is clear
that in the present case, the petitioner being
judgment debtor has raised objections to
the effect that the relief sought in execution
proceedings are beyond the scope of
arbitration award and as such ignoring the
fact that such objections have been filed
purportedly under Section 47 of the Code,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the
executing court would have an inherent
right to decide such objections in view of
what has been held herein above. However,
the said determination would necessarily
exclude objections raised to insufficiency
of stamp duty which even otherwise was
barred under the principles of res judicata.

21. In view of aforesaid, while not
interfering with order dated 01.04.2023 so
far as it holds that objections under Section
47 of the Code are not maintainable, the
executing court is directed to decide the
objections raised by petitioner excluding
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
those pertaining to insufficiency of stamp
duty and decree pertaining to movable
property by the award.

22. In view of aforesaid, the Petition
is partly allowed to aforesaid extent. The
parties to bear their own costs.

23. The executing court is also
directed to expedite hearing of the
execution application in conformity with
directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court with regard to expeditious disposal
of
proceedings
for
enforcement
of
arbitration awards.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 1032
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ C No. 4999 of 2023

Kusum Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj Kumar Mishra, Prabhat Kumar Ojha,
Vinay Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dubey, Dr. Pooja Singh,
Jay Prakash Singh Vats

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 226 - The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat
Raj
Act,
1947-Section
12-C---
The
Prescribed Authority has passed the 'final order',
which is impugned in this petition, whereby, he
allowed the election petition and directed for recounting of votes with a further direction to the
effect that after necessary action, the matter be
consigned to record--- The order, in issue, is
covered under the expression 'final order' and
being so revision would be maintainable
under Section 12-C(6) of the Act--- Liberty
granted
to
the
petitioner
to
approach
Revisional
Authority,
as
provided
under
Section 12-C(6) of the Act--- If the petitioner
prefers the revision within a period of 30
days, which is the limitation prescribed for
preferring the revision assailing the order
passed by Prescribed Authority, the same
shall be decided on merits. (Para 29-31)

Petition disposed of. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dori Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2017 SCC
OnLine All 3220

2. (Rajesh Kumar Vs Distt Judge Shrawasti &
ors.) 2019 SCC OnLine All 4851

3. Writ Petition No.18420 (M/S) of 2019 (Kamal
Kumar Dhuriya Vs Prescribed Authority, S.D.M.,
Lalganj, Dist.- Paratapgarh And Ors.)

4. Matters Under Article 227 No.31424 of 2021
(Parshuram Vs St. of U.P. & Others)

5. Writ - C No.33777 of 2022 Manoj Devi Vs St.
of U.P. & ors.

6. Sajida Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate & Others;
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 11

7. Mohd. Mustafa Vs Up Ziladhikari; 2007 SCC
OnLine All 1564

8. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association
Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 309

9. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque
& ors. AIR 1955 SC 233,

10.
Dana
Rajeshwari
Vs
Bodavula
Hanumayamma & ors.; AIR 1997 SC 1541

11. Virender Kumar Rai & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
(2004) 13 SCC 463

12. Trai Foods Ltd. Vs National Insurance Co. &
ors.; (2004) 13 SCC 656