# Smt. Madhubala v. H.P. Singh and others - **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 633 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-04-20 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27994 of 2006 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-madhubala-v-h-p-singh-and-others-42239 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-order XXIII, Rule 3 (A)-compromise not signed by petitioner-nor authorize the Counsel to do so-order passed on basis of said compromise-held illegal-matter remitted back for decision on merit. Held: Para 9 In the instant case there is no dispute that the compromise was not signed by the petitioner and the records also indicates the same impugned order, therefore, incorrectly assumes that the petitioner had signed the compromise. The authorization through the vakalatanama has to be supplemented by the actual compromise being signed by the parties themselves. 634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 Case law discussed: 1992 (1) S.C.C. Page 31; AIR 1993 SC Page 1139 ## Text 2 All] Smt. Madhubala V. H.P. Singh and others 633 get fresh elections held then the Deputy Director of Education can appoint a person for the purposes of holding fresh elections. It is, therefore, clear that the right, which is conferred upon the nominated person is only to held fresh elections only. All other rights under the scheme of administration especially those pertaining to enrollment of new members is not conferred or transferred upon such nominated person/Authorized Controller. 17. Reference may also be had to the Clause 1 of Chapter II, which confer a right upon the General Body to accept or not to accept a person as member with a further provision that in case of dispute, the decision of the President shall be final. 18. Admittedly, as on date the General Body comprises of only one member and there is no President. Therefore, the question of enrollment of new members in accordance with the scheme of administration does not arise. As already noticed above, the nominated person/Authorized Controller has not been conferred any power under the scheme of administration to enroll new members. The Sub Divisional Magistrate appears to be legally justified in recording a finding that the enrollment of new members by earlier nominated person was apparently illegal. Similarly, there cannot be any directions by the Joint Director of Education for authorizing any other person to induct new members to the General Body. 19. However, in the opinion of the Court the only remedy for the petitioners to file a civil suit for intervention in the matter so as to come over the peculiar situation, which has arising in the institution for want of valid members of the General Body and it is for the competent Civil Court to frame a scheme as may be permissible under the law. 20. Writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Education Authorities to not to enroll any new member to the General Body of the institution except under orders of a competent Civil Court. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27994 of 2006 Smt. Madhubala ...Petitioner Versus H.P. Singh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arun Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Sri Anupam Shukla Code of Criminal Procedure-order XXIII, Rule 3 (A)-compromise not signed by petitioner-nor authorize the Counsel to do so-order passed on basis of said compromise-held illegal-matter remitted back for decision on merit. Held: Para 9 In the instant case there is no dispute that the compromise was not signed by the petitioner and the records also indicates the same impugned order, therefore, incorrectly assumes that the petitioner had signed the compromise. The authorization through the vakalatanama has to be supplemented by the actual compromise being signed by the parties themselves. 634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 Case law discussed: 1992 (1) S.C.C. Page 31; AIR 1993 SC Page 1139 (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P.Sahi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shukla who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2, Insurance Company. Inspite of service of notice on respondent no.1 by all modes, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 29th July 2001 whereby it has proceeded to decide the motor accident claim on the basis of a compromise said to have been entered into by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2. 3. Sri Sharma contends that the petitioner had never instructed her counsel to enter into a compromise and even otherwise the compromise was against the interest of her minor child and there was no compromise in writing between the petitioner and the contesting opposite party. 4. The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded on the basis of the compromise application bearing exhibit paper No. 22 A and came to the conclusion that in view of the said compromise having been read and explained to the parties, the same deserved to be accepted, as such, the order was passed accordingly on the basis thereof. 5. The petitioner has come up with a clear case that there was no compromise drawn up in writing or signed by the petitioner and, therefore, the recital contained in the order that the claimant has also signed the same is incorrect. She further submits that her counsel had not been instructed to enter into any compromise. The compromise memo was unauthorized and was not in conformity with the provisions of Order XXIII read with Rule 3 (A) of Civil Procedure Code. The matter had been heard on the previous occasion and the learned counsel was granted time to study the case law including the decision in the case of Byram Pestonji Gariwala Vs. Union Bank of India 1992 Volume (1) S.C.C. Page 31. 6. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and, therefore, the matter be disposed of finally. 7. Sri Sharma has invited the attention of the Court to the Subsequent Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Chando Devi reported in AIR 1993 SC Page 1139 paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 to urge that the compromise being absolutely void and not in conformity with law, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 8. Having perused the aforesaid judgment the ratio laid down therein is that the Court must insist upon the parties to reduce the terms of compromise in writing and further it should be signed by the parties so as to make a complete agreement in terms of the Contract Act capable of being enforced by a court of law. The said judgment now categorically in view of the amendment brought about in Order 2 All] Mohan Kumar Varshney and others V. State of U.P. and others 635 XXIII Rule 3 of the proviso therein, requires a compromise to the signed by the parties and presented before the Court. 9. In the instant case there is no dispute that the compromise was not signed by the petitioner and the records also indicates the same impugned order, therefore, incorrectly assumes that the petitioner had signed the compromise. The authorization through the vakalatanama has to be supplemented by the actual compromise being signed by the parties themselves. 10. In view of this wrong assumption of fact and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Banwari Lal (supra), the order dated 29th July 2001 and the subsequent order dated 25.3.2006 rejecting the misc. application of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly the impugned orders dated 29th July 2001 and 25.3.2006 are set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to proceed to decide the claim in accordance with law ignoring the said compromise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30971 of 2011 Mohan Kumar Varshney and others ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vinod Kumar Agrawal Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India Article 226Deficiency of Stamp duty-Petitioner submitted reply to the Notice-but imposition of penalty without Notice on opportunity-violation of principle of Natural Justice-unsustainable. Held: Para 7 In view of the above, determination of deficiency in excess of the amount mentioned in the notice is clearly in violation of the principles of the natural justice and can not be sustained in law. The authorities could not have travelled beyond the show cause notice in determining the deficiency. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Vinod Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing counsel. 2. Pleadings exchanged between the parties have been perused and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.