# Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 521
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 35362 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saurabh-kalani-v-stressed-asset-stabilisation-fund-mumbai-ors-51436
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Civil Procedure Code,1908Order 7- Rule 11-Limitation Act-Section
3(1)-DRT,
Jabalpur
rejected
the
petitioner's application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the original
application
was
time
barred-DRAT,
Allahabad disposed of the appeal without
setting aside the DRT's order but allowed
the petitioner to raise limitation issues at
the final hearing-Held, a plaint can only be
rejected if it appears from its statements
that the suit is barred by law, including
limitation-the limitation issue is generally
a mixed question of law and fact requiring
trial for proper adjudication-The Tribunal's
observation that the application was not
barred by limitation does not operate as
res judicata-The court found the appellate
Tribunal's order correct-Petition dismissed
with a direction to the DRT to decide the
limitation issue during trial as per the
appellate tribunal's instructions.(Para 1 to
29)

The writ petition is disposed of. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Saurabh Kalani Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors.
521
the petitioner on the application which he
had moved on 24.11.2022. Since a lot of
period has elapsed because of the litigation
the petitioner had to undergo because of the
order dated 6.9.2023, we direct that the
petitioner's licence shall be effective for six
more months after the expiry of the licence
on 8.3.2024. This we hold on the basis of
the judgement of the Supreme Court
reported in AIR 2003 SC 833 : Beg Raj
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly,
stands allowed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 521
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ C No. 35362 of 2023

Saurabh Kalani ...Petitioner
Versus
Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Veerendra Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Civil Procedure Code,1908Order 7- Rule 11-Limitation Act-Section
3(1)-DRT,
Jabalpur
rejected
the
petitioner's application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the original
application
was
time
barred-DRAT,
Allahabad disposed of the appeal without
setting aside the DRT's order but allowed
the petitioner to raise limitation issues at
the final hearing-Held, a plaint can only be
rejected if it appears from its statements
that the suit is barred by law, including
limitation-the limitation issue is generally
a mixed question of law and fact requiring
trial for proper adjudication-The Tribunal's
observation that the application was not
barred by limitation does not operate as
res judicata-The court found the appellate
Tribunal's order correct-Petition dismissed
with a direction to the DRT to decide the
limitation issue during trial as per the
appellate tribunal's instructions.(Para 1 to
29)

The writ petition is disposed of. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. T.Arivandandam Vs T.V. Satyapal(1997) 4
SCC 467

2. Saleem Bhai Vs St. of Mah.(2003) 1 SCC 557

3. Kamala Vs K.T. Eshwara(2008) 12 SCC 661

4. Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs Syed
Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174: (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602

5. Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs Hemant Vithal
Kamat & ors..(2021) 9 SCC 99

6. Ramesh B Desai & ors.. Vs Vipin Vadilal
Mehta & ors..(2006) 5 SCC 638

7. P.V Guru Raj Raddy & anr.. Vs P. Neeradha
Reddy & ors..(2015) 8 SCC 331

8. U.O.I. & anr.. Vs British India Corp. Ltd. &
ors.. (2003) 9 SCC 505

9. Gannmani Anasuya & ors.. Vs Parvatini
Amarendra Chowdhary & ors.. (2007) 10 SCC
296

10. Noharlal Verma Vs Distt Co-op. Central Bank
Ltd Jagdalpur (2008) 14 SCC 445

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 18.11.2022
passed in Original Application No. 729 of
2016 (Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund Vs.
M/s Gilt Pack Ltd. And others) by which,
application of the petitioner under Order
VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been rejected by
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'D.R.T.
Jabalpur'). The appellate order dated
3.1.2023 in Appeal No.1140 of 2022
(Saurabh
Kalani
Vs.
Stressed
Asset
Stabilization Fund and others) passed by
the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as
'D.R.A.T., Allahabad') is
also
under
challenge.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
respondent
No.1
-
Stressed
Asset
Stabilisation Fund is the assignee of the
original lendor IDBI. IDBI granted the
financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 7.60
crores to respondent No.2 - Gilt Pack Ltd.
Company during the year 1994 -1996.
Petitioner is the guarantor to the aforesaid
financial
assistance
granted
to
the
Company on the basis of Deed of
Guarantee dated 24.3.1994, 16.11.1994 and
26.9.1996.
The
Original
Application
No.729 of 2016 has been filed by
respondent No.1 before the D.R.T. Jabalpur
in the year 2016. Petitioner has been
arrayed as opposite party no. 3 in the
aforesaid
Original Application.
Relief
claimed in Original Application is that
defendants No.1 to 3 be ordered to pay the
applicant a sum of Rs. 394,41,00,970/-
towards the loan as on 1.7.2016 together
with further interest thereon on contractual
rates w.e.f. 1.7.2016 and for other reliefs. In
the aforesaid proceedings, petitioner moved
an application under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC
on
the
ground
that
Original
Application has been filed after a lapse of
19 years from the date of execution of
Deed of Guarantee executed by the
petitioner and the claim of respondent No.1
is barred by time and, therefore, the
Original
Application
be
rejected.
Respondent No.1 contested the application
and filed objection to the application filed
by petitioner. The application of petitioner
has been rejected by the D.R.T. Jabalpur by
its order dated 18.10.2022. Against the
order dated 18.11.2022, petitioner preferred
an appeal being Appeal No.1140 of 2022
(Saurabh
Kalani
Vs.
Stressed
Asset
Stabilization Fund and others) before the
D.R.A.T.
Allahabad.
The
D.R.A.T.
Allahabad, by its order dated 3.1.2023, has
disposed of the appeal permitting the
appellant-petitioner
to
raise
his
contentions/grievances whatever he has,
with regard to the maintainability of
Original Application in view of limitation
and if such an application is filed by the
appellant-petitioner before the Tribunal
below, the same shall be considered at the
time of final hearing of the said Original
Application and has refused to entertain the
appeal as the matter is pending before the
concerned Tribunal and all the issues are
yet to be adjudicated on merits.

4. It has been contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that D.R.A.T. has
though permitted the petitioner to raise his
grievances as to the issue of maintainability
of the Original Application on the ground
of limitation and has also directed for
consideration of same at the time of final
hearing of Original Application but has not
set aside the order passed by the DRT
Jabalpur by which application filed by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,
has been rejected by the D.R.T. Jabalpur
holding that Original Application is not
barred by limitation. It has been further
contended by learned counsel for the
2 All. Saurabh Kalani Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors.
523
petitioner that unless the order passed by
Debts Recovery Tribunal is set aside
holding that the Original Application is not
barred by limitation, the same will operate
as resjudicata when the matter will be
considered by Debts Recovery Tribunal in
pursuance to the directions given by the
D.R.A.T. Contentions are also raised by
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
on merits against the findings recorded by
the D.R.T. Jabalpur while dismissing his
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. It will be useful to examine the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC
before considering the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule
11 of the Order VII CPC is quoted as under
:-

11. Rejection of plaint - The
plaint shall be rejected in the following
cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a
cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is
undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is
properly valued but the plaint is written
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
supply the requisite stamp-paper within a
time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from
the statement in the plaint to be barred by
any law;

[(e) where it is not filed in
duplicate];

[(f) where the plaintiff fails to
comply with the provisions of rule 9];

[Provided that the time fixed by
the Court for the correction of the valuation
or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers
shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the
plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an
exceptional nature from correcting the
valuation or supplying the requisite stamppapers, as the case may be, within the time
fixed by the Court and that refusal to
extend such time would cause grave
injustice to the plaintiff.]"

6. In case of T. Arivandandam vs.
T.V. Satyapal; (1997) 4 SCC 467: Apex
Court has held that the provisions of Rule
11 are mandatory. If the plaint is found to
be defective and the case is covered by
Rule 11, it goes to the root of the matter
and the Court has no option and the plaint
has to be rejected. An application by
opposite party is not necessary.

7. From the reading of Clause 11 of
Order 7 C.P.C., it is clear where the suit
appears from the statements in the plaint to
be barred by any law, the Court shall reject
the plaint.

8. Indeed, Order VII Rule 11 CPC
gives ample power to the Court to reject the
plaint, if from the averments in the plaint, it
is evident that the suit is barred by any law
including the law of limitation, this position
is no more res integra.

9. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC provides
that the plaint shall be rejected "where the
suit appears from the statement made in the
plaint to be barred by any law", hence, in
order to decide whether the suit is barred
by law, it is the statement in the plaint will
have to be construed. The Court while
deciding such an application under Order 7
Rule 11 C.P.C. must have due regard only
to the statements made in the plaint.
Whether the suit is barred by any law must
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be determined from the statements in the
plaint and it is not open to decide the issue
on the basis of any other material including
the written statement in the case.

10. In Saleem Bhai vs. State of
Maharashtra; (2003) 1 SCC 557, the
Apex Court while considering Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code held as under: (SCC
560, Para 9) :-

"A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC. makes it clear that the relevant facts
which need to be looked into for deciding
an
application
thereunder
are
the
averments in the plaint. The trial court can
exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC at any stage of the suit-before
registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time
before the conclusion of the trial. For the
purposes of deciding an application under
clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7
CPC the averments in the plaint are
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant
in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage......"

11. In Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara;
(2008) 12 SCC 661, S.B. Sinha, J speaking
for the Bench examined the ambit of Order
VII Rule 11(d) CPC and observed: (SCC
668-69, paras 21 and 22)

"21. Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the
Code has limited application. It must be
shown that the suit is barred under any law.
Such a conclusion must be drawn from the
averments made in the plaint. Different
clauses in Order 7, Rule 11, in our opinion,
should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given
case, an application for rejection of the
plaint may be filed on more than one
ground specified in various sub-clauses
thereof, a clear finding to that effect must
be arrived at. What would be relevant for
invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code is the averments made in the
plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be
any addition or subtraction. Absence of
jurisdiction on the part of a court can be
invoked at different stages and under
different provisions of the Code. Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2
is another.

22. For the purpose of invoking
Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount
of evidence can be looked into. The issues
on merit of the matter which may arise
between the parties would not be within the
realm of the court at that stage. All issues
shall not be the subject matter of an order
under the said provision."

12. In case of Madanuri Sri Rama
Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal; (2017)
13 SCC 174: (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602; the
Apex Court has summarized the legal
position as follows :-

"The plaint can be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated
in the said provision are fulfilled. It is
needless to observe that the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be exercised by the
Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant
facts which need to be looked into for
deciding the application are the averments
of the plaint only. If on an entire and
meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found
that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing any
right to sue, the court should exercise
power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since
the power conferred on the Court to
terminate civil action at the threshold is
drastic, the conditions enumerated under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of
power of rejection of plaint have to be
strictly adhered to. The averments of the
2 All. Saurabh Kalani Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors.
525
plaint have to be read as a whole to find
out whether the averments disclose a cause
of action or whether the suit is barred by
any law. It is needless to observe that the
question as to whether the suit is barred by
any law, would always depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. The
averments in the written statement as well
as the contentions of the defendant are
wholly immaterial while considering the
prayer of the defendant for rejection of the
plaint. Even when the allegations made in
the plaint are taken to be correct as a
whole on their face value, if they show that
the suit is barred by any law, or do not
disclose cause of action, the application for
rejection of plaint can be entertained and
the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can
be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint
has created the illusion of a cause of
action, the court will nip it in the bud at the
earliest so that bogus litigation will
end at the earlier stage."

13. Recently, the Apex Court in
case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala
vs.
Hemant
Vithal
Kamat
and
others;
(2021)
9
SCC
99
has
reiterated the same principle (paras
25, 25.1, 25.2 and 25.3), which are as
follows :-

"25. On a perusal of the
above
authorities,
the
guiding
principles for deciding an application
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be
summarized as follows:

25.1 To reject a plaint on the
ground that the suit is barred by any
law, only the averments in the plaint
will have to be referred to;

25.2 The defense made by the
defendant in the suit must not be
considered while deciding the merits of the
application;

14. In case of Srihari Hanumandas
Totala (Supra), the Apex Court was
considering with an objection regarding bar
of res judicata and not of limitation.

15. With the help of petitioner, I have
perused the copy of Original Application
which is filed at page 64 of the paper book
from which it is clear that as per the
averment made therein, Deed of Guarantee
has been executed by the petitioner in the
year 1994-96. Defendant - respondent No.2
(original borrower) filed a Reference before
BIFR being Case No. 84 of 1997 and
BIFR, vide its order dated 8.1.2007, passed
final winding up order in relation to
original borrower company. It has been
further stated in the Original Application
that
the
original
borrower
has
acknowledged the debt of applicant vide
letter dated 18.3.2006 and has also
submitted the letter dated April 1, 2006 for
One Time Settlement Scheme. It has also
been stated in the Original Application that
to finalize the financial Assistance forming
subject matter of the present Original
Application, the same has been demanded
by respondent No.1 from the defendant -
respondent
No.2
vide
notice
dated
17.10.2007 u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And
Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
and respondent no. 1 has also invoked the
guarantee of the Guarantors vide letter
dated 18.1.2016.

16. Question of limitation is generally
a mixed question of law and fact. In case of
Ramesh B Desai and others vs. Vipin
Vadilal Mehta and others; (2006) 5 SCC
638; the Apex Court while dealing with the
issue of limitation held that a plea of
limitation cannot be decided as an abstract
principle of law divorced from facts, as in
every case, the starting point of limitation
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has to be ascertained which is entirely a
question of fact.

17. As the plea of limitation is
generally a mixed question of law and fact.
At this stage, it will be useful to refer the
provisions of Order VII Rule 6 CPC which
are quoted as under :-

"6. Grounds of exemption from
limitation law - Where the suit is instituted
after the expiration of the period prescribed
by the law of limitation, the plaint shall
show the ground upon which exemption
from such law is claimed."

18. In view of Order VII Rule 6 CPC,
plaintiff is entitled to claim exemption from
the law of limitation on the grounds as set
forth by him in his plaint claiming such
exemption.

19. In case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy
and Another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and
others; (2015) 8 SCC 331, the Apex Court
held that rejection of the plaint under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power
conferred in the Court to terminate a civil
action at the threshold. The conditions
precedent to the exercise of power under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, are
stringent and have been consistently held to
be so by the Court. It is the averments in
the plaint that have to be read as a whole to
find out whether it discloses a cause of
action or whether the suit is barred under
any law. At the stage of exercise of power
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the stand of
the defendants in the written statement or in
the application for rejection of the plaint is
wholly immaterial. It is only if the
averments in the plaint ex facie do not
disclose a cause of action or an a reading
thereof the suit appears to be barred
under any law, the plaint can be rejected.
In all other situations the claims will
have to be adjudicated in the course of
trial.

20. In the present case, from reading
of the Original Application as a whole and
proceeding on the basis that the averments
made therein are correct, which is what the
Court is required to do so it cannot be said
that the said pleadings ex facie disclose that
the suit is barred by limitation. So far as the
contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Original Application
itself was filed after a lapse of more than 16
years
and
the
petitioner
never
acknowledged the claim of respondent
No.1 during this period and also other
submissions made by the petitioner cannot
be looked into at the stage of considering
the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of
CPC.

21. So far as contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Courts
below have erred in law in rejecting the
application of the petitioner under VII Rule
11 CPC as the Original Application was
filed much beyond the time prescribed by
the Limitation Act and coupled with the
fact that petitioner never acknowledged the
debt during this period cannot be sustained
for the reason that in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court, as discussed
above, at the stage of considering the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
it is only the plaint allegation has to be seen
and not the defence which is being taken by
the defendant either in his written statement
or in his application under Order VII Rule
11 can be considered. From the perusal of
the Original Application it cannot be said
that as per the allegations contained in the
Original
Application,
the
Original
Application is barred by time. So far as
contentions of the petitioner on merit
2 All. Saurabh Kalani Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors.
527
otherwise are based on the pleadings in his
written statement can be considered only
after framing of an issue as to limitation
and after considering the evidence of both
the parties and not at the stage of deciding
the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.

22. Further contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that though the
D.R.A.T. while deciding the appeal has
permitted the petitioner to move an
application as to his grievance relating to
limitation and in case such application is
moved, the same shall be considered by the
Tribunal at the time of decision of the
Original Application is concerned is of no
consequence as the order passed by the
D.R.T. rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
has
held
therein
that
the
Original
Application is not barred by limitation, has
not been set aside by the D.R.A.T. and the
same will operate as res judicata at the time
when the issue of limitation will be
considered as per the directions of the
D.R.A.T. Contention of the leraned counsel
for the petitioner, is also misconceived, for
the reason that at the time of consideration
of application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, the Tribunal has to confine itself only
to the averments made in the Original
Application and at that stage, the Tribunal
cannot look into any other material. While
considering the issue of limitation, as
directed by the D.R.A.T., the Tribunal has
to examine the pleadings of both the parties
as well as the evidence led in support of
their cases by both the parties and in my
view any finding recorded by the D.R.T.
while deciding the application under Order
VII Rule 11 will not operate as res judicata
while deciding the issue of limitation after
exchange of pleadings and after the parties
led their evidence.

23. Even otherwise, in view of
Section 3(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, it
is the duty of the Court or Tribunal to
consider the issue of limitation of its own
even though the issue of limitation has not
been raised by either of the parties. In this
regard, Section 3 of the Indian Limitation
Act is quoted as under :-

"3. Bar of limitation.- (1)
Subject to the provisions contained in
sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
instituted,
appeal
preferred,
and
application made after the prescribed
period
shall
be
dismissed,
although
limitation has not been set up as a defence.

(2) .............."

24. The Apex Court in case of Union
of India and another v. British India
Corporation Ltd. and others reported in
(2003) 9 SCC 505, in paragraph no. 7 has
held as under:

"7. As to the first point, the
question of limitation is a mandate to the
forum and, irrespective of the fact whether
it was raised or not, the forum must
consider and apply it, if there is no dispute
on facts.

25. In case of Gannmani Anasuya
and others v. Parvatini Amarendra
Chowdhary and others reported in (2007)
10 SCC 296, the Apex Court in paragraph
no. 27 has held as under:

"27. In terms of Section 3 of the
Limitation Act, it is for the court to
determine the question as to whether the
suit is barred by limitation or not
irrespective of the fact that as to whether
such a plea has been raised by the parties.
Such a jurisdictional fact need not, thus, be
pleaded."
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. Similarly, in case of Noharlal
Verma v. District Cooperative Central
Bank Limited, Jagdalpur reported in
(2008) 14 SCC 445, the Apex Court
reiterated the view in paragraph no. 32 &
33 as under:

"32. Now, limitation goes to the
root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or
application is barred by limitation, a Court
or an Adjudicating Authority has no
jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain
such suit, appeal or application and to
decide it on merits.

33. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under;

(3) Bar of limitation.--(1) Subject
to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to
24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal
preferred, and application made after the
prescribed period shall be dismissed
although limitation has not been set up as a
defence.

(emphasis supplied)

Bare reading of the aforesaid
provision leaves no room for doubt that if a
suit is instituted, appeal is preferred or
application is made after the prescribed
period, it has to be dismissed even though
no such plea has been raised or defence
has been set up. In other words, even in
absence of such plea by the defendant,
respondent or opponent, the Court or
Authority must dismiss such suit, appeal or
application, if it is satisfied that the suit,
appeal or application is barred by
limitation."

27. The issue of limitation being
generally a mixed issue of fact and law and
is subject to the evidence led by the parties.
The
findings
recorded
by
the
Court/Tribunal
while
deciding
the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
will not operate as res judicata.

28. I am of the considered opinion
that the judgment of the Appellate Court is
perfectly correct as it takes care of the
petitioner's concern as to bar of limitation
to
maintainability
of
the
Original
Application.

29. In view of the same, I am not
inclined to interfere with the matter.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of
with the direction to D.R.T. Jabalpur to
comply with the directions issued by the
D.R.A.T. Allahabad vide its order dated
3.1.2023 passed in Appeal No.1140 of 2022
(Saurabh
Kalani
Vs.
Stressed
Asset
Stabilization Fund and others.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 528
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 37047 of 2023

Hakim Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj, Sri M.A. Haseen

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nipun Singh

Civil Law- Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Urban
Land(Ceiling
and
Regulation)Act,
1976-Section
10(3),
10(5)-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam, 1965-The land was declared
surplus and acquired by awas evam vikas
parishad-he claimed no compensation was
received
under
the
Act,1976
and
notifications
were
never
served-The