# The Government of U.P v. M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-24
- **Case number:** Conciliation Act 1996 No. 255 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-government-of-u-p-v-m-s-krishna-mohan-goel-contractor-52744
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Whether objections filed under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
require
prior
sanction
from
the
Legal
Remembrancer (L.R.) under the L.R. Manual,
and if absence of such sanction renders them
non-maintainable.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section - 34, - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 14, Order
XXIX Rule 1, Order XLI Rule 27, -
Constitution of India - Article - 13, 166 -
Three Appeals - challenging three identical
orders
-
whereby
the
Commercial
Court
dismissed the appellant's objections filed under
section 34 of the Act, 1996 - on the ground on
not maintainable, since before filing of those
respective objections, the appellants had not
obtained prior permission from the Legal
Remembrancer (LR) - the issue for consideration
was whether such objections are maintainable
without L.R. sanction, with appellants arguing
that
the
L.R.
Manual
is
only
executive
instructions
and
departmental
permission
existed, while respondents contended Clause
17.07 requires sanction or ex-post
facto
approval - Court held that, Clause 15.05 applies
only to suits, Clause 17.07 does not mandate
prior sanction, and the L.R. Manual is not "law"
under Articles 13 and 166 of the Constitution,
citing State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC
714, Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) 2
SCC 510, United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar
(1996) 6 SCC 660, and distinguishing M/s B.M.
Construction Company v. State of U.P. (2025) -
therefore, impugned dismissal was unjustified -
the appeals were allowed - directions issued,
for restoration of all arbitration cases, to their
original number and status and the same shall
be decided on its merits within a period of four
months, accordingly.(Para - 11, 12, 13, 22, 24,
25)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

11 All. The Government of U.P. Vs. M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor
1291
Mullick (supra) does not come to the aid
of the appellant.

28. In so far as the decision of the
coordinate Bench in Hema Agarwal (supra)
is concerned, the same also has no
applicability in the instant case rather it has
merely relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Kinnari Mullick (supra) and as
noticed above where it could not be shown
as to how the provisions of Section 34 (4)
would apply, hence, the judgment of this
Court in Hema Agarwal (supra) is not of
any help to the appellants.

29. In the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court finds that the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant
have no merit and the appeal is accordingly
dismissed, leaving it open for the appellant
to take recourse as may be available in law
while
participating
in
the
arbitral
proceedings
which
is
the
necessary
corollary and outcome after passing of the
impugned order dated 08.08.2025. Costs
are made easy.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1291
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration And
Conciliation Act 1996 No. 255 of 2025
Connected with 253 of 2025 & 252 of 2025

The Government of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rajiv Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Dilip Kumar, Sanjai Kumar Singh, Ashish
Jaiswal

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether objections filed under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
require
prior
sanction
from
the
Legal
Remembrancer (L.R.) under the L.R. Manual,
and if absence of such sanction renders them
non-maintainable.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section - 34, - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 14, Order
XXIX Rule 1, Order XLI Rule 27, -
Constitution of India - Article - 13, 166 -
Three Appeals - challenging three identical
orders
-
whereby
the
Commercial
Court
dismissed the appellant's objections filed under
section 34 of the Act, 1996 - on the ground on
not maintainable, since before filing of those
respective objections, the appellants had not
obtained prior permission from the Legal
Remembrancer (LR) - the issue for consideration
was whether such objections are maintainable
without L.R. sanction, with appellants arguing
that
the
L.R.
Manual
is
only
executive
instructions
and
departmental
permission
existed, while respondents contended Clause
17.07 requires sanction or ex-post
facto
approval - Court held that, Clause 15.05 applies
only to suits, Clause 17.07 does not mandate
prior sanction, and the L.R. Manual is not "law"
under Articles 13 and 166 of the Constitution,
citing State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC
714, Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) 2
SCC 510, United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar
(1996) 6 SCC 660, and distinguishing M/s B.M.
Construction Company v. State of U.P. (2025) -
therefore, impugned dismissal was unjustified -
the appeals were allowed - directions issued,
for restoration of all arbitration cases, to their
original number and status and the same shall
be decided on its merits within a period of four
months, accordingly.(Para - 11, 12, 13, 22, 24,
25)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714,
2. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and Another
- JT (2004) (2) SCC 1 & 2004 vol. 2 SCC 510.
3. United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar (1996)
6 SCC 660,
4. 1M/s B.M. Construction Company Vs. The
State of UP and Another (Matter U/A-227 No.
15777 of 2024),
5. The State of UP and Another Vs. M/s B.M.
Construction Company SLP No. 27340/2025.

LIST OF ACTS
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908), Constitution of India.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Arbitral award - Arbitration Case - Section 34 -
Legal Remembrancer (L.R.) - LR Manual - Prior
sanction
-

ex-post
facto
sanction
-
Maintainability
of
objections
-
Procedural
irregularity vs substantive justice - Commercial
Court, Prayagraj - Arbitration award challenge.

CASE ARISING FROM
Commercial Court, Prayagraj orders dated
04.07.2025, 10.06.2025, and 10.06.2025 in
Arbitration Case Nos. 20/2023, 14/2023, and
15/2023 - Appeals Nos. 252, 253, and 255 of
2025 before the High Court.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Rajiv Singh,
Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondent(s): Sri Anil Kumar
Mishra and Shri Ashish Jaiswal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. These three appeals have been filed
challenging
identical
orders
dated
04.07.2025, 10.06.2025 and 10.06.2025,
whereby the Commercial Court, Prayagraj
has dismissed the objections under Section
34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (in short 'Act, 1996') filed by the
appellants, respectively in Arbitration Case
No. 20 of 2023, 14 of 2023 and 15 of 2023.
Dismissal of the objections is only on the
ground that before filing of the same, the
appellants
had
not
obtained
prior
permission from the Legal Remembrancer
(in
short
'L.R.')
and,
therefore,
the
objections were not maintainable.

2. Since the orders passed by the
Commercial Court are not on merits of the
arbitration case, that is to say that the
awards passed by the Arbitrator have not
been examined on merits, we are not
entering into the factual controversy
involved in the matter and are deciding
these appeals only on the limited aspect as
to whether, in absence of prior permission
obtained from L.R., objections under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 were
maintainable.

3. First of all, we may refer to the
finding recorded by the Commercial Court
in all three orders impugned in these
appeals. The finding recorded in the order
dated 04.07.2025 passed in Arbitration
Case No. 20 of 2023 (impugned in
Arbitration Appeal No. 255 of 2025) reads
as under:-

"5. पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध पत्र ददिािंकित
14.10.2016 िागज िं० 11 ग िे अवलोिि े
ववददत है कि अधीक्षण असभयन्ता बाण ागर
िहर निमााण मण्िल-2 समजाापुर द्वारा अगधशा ी
असभयन्ता िो वाद दायर िरिे व पैरवी िरिे हेतु
िासमत किये जािे िे िंबिंध में पत्र जारी किया
गया है, जज में उत्तर प्रदेश शा ि द्वारा
आत्रबारेशि वाद दायर िरिे िी अिुमनत प्राप्त
होिे िे िंबिंध में िोई उल्लेख िहीिं है। ऐ ी तर्थय
एविं पररजस्थनतयों में, प्राथी /ववभाग िो त्रबिा
उ०प्र० शा ि िे अिुमनत िे प्रस्तुत आत्रबारेशि
बाद दाणखल िरिे िा िोई अगधिार प्राप्त िहीिं है।
11 All. The Government of U.P. Vs. M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor
1293

6.
माििीय
इलाहाबाद
उच्च
न्यायालय द्वारा मेससस बी०एम० कंस्ट्रक्शि
कम्पिी बिाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य एवं 2 अन्य
[Matters Under Article 227 No.-15777 of
2024,
Decided
on:
19.05.2025],
2025:AHC: 82908, िे मामले में पैरा 12 व 13
में प्रनतपाददत ववगध स द्धान्त पुिः निम्िवत
प्रस्तुत हैः-

"12. The record shows that the
application was filed without there being
any sanction from the State as admitted in
para no.7 of the affidavit filed in support of
the aforesaid case filed under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996, a copy of which has been
annexed as Annexure No.3 at page no.33
onwards. The para no. 15.05 of the L.R.
Manual reads as under:-

"15.05. Authority for institution
of suits by the Government- No suit with a
valuation exceeding Rs. 2,500 on behalf of
the State shall be instituted in any court
without the prior sanction of of the Legal
Remembrancer."

"13. On perusal of the aforequote para, it prohibits for filing any suit
prior to sanction of the State Government.
Once there is a prohibition, the application
has been filed without any authority. Once
the authority has not granted approval for
filing the same, it cannot be treated to be
the proper filing."

(जोर ददया गया)

7. प्रस्तुत मामले में असभलेखों िे
अवलोिि े पता चलता है कि यह प्राथािा पत्र
दाणखल िरिे े पूवा प्राथी/ववभाग द्वारा
प्रश्िगत िो अपास्त किये जािे िराये जािे िे
सलए उत्तर प्रदेश शा ि े िोई अिुमनत िहीिं
मािंगी गई है और ि ही इ िंबिंध में िोई
दस्तावेज दाणखल किया गया है। माििीय उच्च
न्यायालय द्वारा मे ा बी०एम० ििंस्रक्शि
िम्पिी बिाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य एविं अन्य
(उपरोक्त िे मामले में प्रनतपाददत ववगध
स द्धान्त िे आलोि में प्राथी / ववभाग िो
प्रस्तुत आत्रबारेशि वाद दाणखल िरिे िा िोई
अगधिार प्राप्त िहीिं है। तदिु ार प्राथािा पत्र 15
ग निरस्त किया जाता है। प्रस्तुत आत्रबारेशि
वाद खाररज किये जािे योग्य है। तदिु ार
खाररज किया जाता है।

आदेश

8. प्रस्तुत आत्रबारेशि वाद खाररज
किया जाता है।

9. पत्रावली दाणखल दफ्तर हो।"

4. The finding recorded in the order
dated 10.06.2025 passed in Arbitration
Case No. 14 of 2023 (impugned in
Arbitration Appeal No. 253 of 2025) and
identical finding recorded in order dated
10.06.2025 passed in Arbitration Case No.
15 of 2023 (impugned in Arbitration
Appeal No. 252 of 2025) read under:-

"23. पक्षों िी ओर े उठाये गये तिा
िे पररप्रेक्ष्य में यह प्रश्ि उठता है कि क्या
प्राथीगण िो प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र अन्तगात धारा
34 अगधनियम 1996, िो दाणखल िरिे िे सलए
उ०प्र० शा ि े अिुमनत आवश्यि है? इ िे
सलए जै ा कि प्राथीगण िी ओर े ववद्वाि
जजला शा िीय अगधवक्ता (स ववल) िे
1294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
एल०आर० मैिुअल िा हवाला ददया है िे
प्र ािंगगि प्रावधाि उद्धृत िरिा आवश्यि हो
जाता है जो निम्िवत है:-

एल०आर० मैिुअल िा प्रा िंगगि
प्रावधाि

"15.05. Authority for institution
of suits by the Government-No suit with a
valuation exceeding Rs. 2,500 on behalf of
the State shall be instituted in any court
without the prior sanction of the Legal
Remembrancer."

17.07. Appeal to District Judge-

(1) The Legal Remembrancer
shall, on receipt of papers and as soon as
may be, give instructions for an appeal
being/or not being filed, as the case may
be.

(2) Instructions may, in this
behalf,
be
given
by
the
Legal
Remembrancer sue moto and in the
absence of a proposal from the head of
Department/District office.

Note-
In
cases
the
District
Government Counsel has advised appeal
before
the
District
Judge
and
no
instructions are received by him from the
Legal Remembrancer even in the last day
of expiry of limitation then he may file an
appeal on that day if there is strong
probability of success and only the interest
of the State is involved. He shall
communicate immediately the reasons
therefor to the Legal Remembrancer for
issuing ex-post-facto sanction for filing
appeal.

24. उपरोक्त दोिों पैरा िो पढ़िे मात्र
 े यह स्पष्ट है कि पैरा15.05 िे प्रावधाि िे
अिु ार राज्य िी ओर े 2,500 रुपये े
अगधि मूल्य िा िोई भी वाद ववगधि
 लाहिार िी पूवा स्वीिृनत िे त्रबिा कि ी भी
न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत िहीिं किया जाएगा तथा
17.07 िे प्रावधाि िे अिु ार उ०प्र० राज्य िे
द्वारा यदद िोई अपील जजला न्यायाधीश िे
न्यायालय में दाणखल किया जािा है तो ववगधि
 लाहिार िागजात प्राप्त होिे पर यथाशीघ्र,
अपील दायर िरिे या ि िरिे िे िंबिंध में,
जै ा भी मामला हो, निदेश देगा। ऐ े मामलों
में, जब जजला शा िीय अगधवक्ता िे जजला
न्यायाधीश िे मक्ष अपील िी लाह दी हो
और उ े मय- ीमा माप्त होिे िे अिंनतम
ददि ति भी ववगधि लाहिार े िोई निदेश
प्राप्त ि हुआ हो, तो वह उ ददि अपील दायर
िर िता है, यदद फलता िी प्रबल िंभाविा
हो और िेवल राज्य िा दहत शासमल हो।

25. एल०आर० मैिुअल िे उक्त पैरा
िे प्रावधाि े यह पूणातया स्पष्ट है कि उ०प्र०
राज्य िे द्वारा 15.05- स ववल वाद दायर िरिे
और 17.07- अपील दायर िरिे िे िंबिंध में
प्रावधाि है। पक्षों िी ओर े उपजस्थत ववद्वाि
अगधवक्ता द्वारा धारा 34 अगधनियम 1996 िे
अन्तगात प्रश्िगत अवािा िो अपास्त किये जािे
िे सलए प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र िो दाणखल िरिे िे
सलए उ०प्र० शा ि े एल०आर० मैिुअल िे
कि प्रावधाि िे अन्तगात अिुमनत लेिा
आवश्यि है यह स्पष्ट िहीिं किया गया है
यद्यवप
कि
ववद्वाि
जजला
शा िीय
अगधवक्ता िे अपिे बह में यह स्वीिार किया
है कि धारा 34 िे अन्तगात प्राथािा पत्र दाणखल
िरिे िे सलए शा ि े अिुमनत आवश्यि है
और अवािा िी प्रनत प्राप्त होिे िे उपरान्त
11 All. The Government of U.P. Vs. M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor
1295
ववभाग िे द्वारा शा ि िो पत्राचार किया
जाता है और धारा 34 (3) में ददये गये मय
 ीमा िे अजन्तम ददव पर यदद कि ी
िारणवश अिुमनत िहीिं समल पाती है और
प्राथािा पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जािा रिार िे दहत
में हो तो त्रबिा अिुमनत िे प्रत्याशा में प्राथािा
पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जा िता है।

26. एल०आर० मैिुअल िे उक्त
प्रावधाि तथा पक्षों िी ओर े उठाये गये तिा िे
पररप्रेक्ष्य में उत्पन्ि हुये ववचारणीय त्रबन्दु कि
क्या प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र अन्तगात धारा 34
अगधनियम, 1996 में दाणखल िरिे िे सलए
शा ि े अिुमनत आवश्यि है और यदद शा ि
 े अिुमनत प्राप्त िहीिं है तो क्या प्राथीगण िो
प्राथािा पत्र प्रस्तुत िरिे िा िोई हि हास ल
िहीिं है एविं प्राथािा पत्र पोर्णीय िहीिं है? इ
त्रबन्दु िे निष्िर्ा पर पहुाँचिे िे सलए माििीय
इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा मेससस बी.एम.
कंस्ट्रक्शि कंपिी बिाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य और 2
अन्य [Matters Under Article 227 No.-15777
of
2024,
Decided
on:
19.05.2025),
2025:AHC:82908, िे अद्यति मामले में
प्रनतपाददत ववगध स द्धान्त िा उल्लेख िरिा
चाहूाँगा, जज में माििीय उच न्यायालय द्वारा
यह अवधाररत किया गया है कि राज्य रिार
िी मिंजूरी े पहले िोई भी मुिदमा दायर िरिे
पर रोि है। जब प्रागधिारी िे इ े दाणखल िरिे
िी मिंजूरी िहीिं दी है, तो इ े उगचत फाइसलिंग िहीिं
मािा जा िता है। पैरा 12 व 13 में प्रनतपाददत
ववगध स द्धान्त तत्िाल न्दभा िे सलए पुिः
निम्िवत प्रस्तुत हैः-

"12. The record shows that the
application was filed without there being
any sanction from the State as admitted in
para no.7 of the affidavit filed in support of
the aforesaid case filed under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996, a copy of which has been
annexed as Annexure No.3 at page no.33
onwards. The para no. 15.05 of the L.R.
Manual reads as under:-

"15.05. Authority for institution
of suits by the Government- No suit with a
valuation exceeding Rs. 2,500 on behalf of
the State shall be instituted in any court
without the prior sanction of of the Legal
Remembrancer."

"13. On perusal of the aforequote para, it prohibits for filing any suit
prior to sanction of the State Government.
Once there is a prohibition, the application
has been filed without any authority. Once
the authority has not granted approval for
filing the same, it cannot be treated to be
the proper filing."

(इ न्यायालय द्वारा जोर ददया गया)

27. प्रस्तुत मामले में, पत्रावली िे
अवलोिि े ववददत है कि प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र
िो दायर िरिे े पूवा प्राथीगण द्वारा प्रश्िगत
अवािा िो अपास्त िरिे िे सलए उत्तर प्रदेश
शा ि एल०आर० मैिुअल िे अिु ार ि तो
अिुमनत मािंगी गयी और ि ही अिुमनत िे
 िंबिंध में िोई दस्तावेजी ाक्ष्य/शा ि िा पत्र
दाणखल किया गया है। यहााँ ति कि प्राथीगण
िी ओर े शा ि े मिंजूरी िी प्रत्याशा में िोई
प्राथािा पत्र दाणखल िरिे िे सलए िहीिं ददया
गया है। ववद्वाि जजला शा िीय अगधवक्ता िे
यह स्वीिार किया है कि प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र
दाणखल िरते मय िोई अिुमनत प्राप्त िहीिं
1296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
है। ऐ ी तर्थय एविं पररजस्थनतयों में माििीय
उच्च
न्यायालय
द्वारा
मे ा
बी.एम.
ििंस्रक्शि ििंपिी बिाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य और
2 अन्य (उपरोक्त) िे मामले में प्रनतपाददत
ववगध स द्धान्त प्रस्तुत मामले में पूणातया लागू
होता है। प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र शा ि े त्रबिा
अिुमनत दाणखल है जज े प्राथीगण िो प्राथािा
पत्र िो प्रस्तुत िरिे िा िोई अगधिार िहीिं है।
प्राथािा पत्र पोर्णीय िहीिं है। त्रबन्दु िं०1
प्राथीगण िे ववरूद्ध निणीत किया जाता है।"

5. Heard Shri Rajiv Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the appellants in all
the appeals, Shri Anil Kumar Mishra and
Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents therein.

6. Learned standing counsel appearing
for the appellants has made following
submissions:-

(i) L.R. Manual, being only
executive instructions and directory in
nature,
mere
non-obtaining
prior
permission from L.R. to institute any
proceedings before the courts of law, would
not render the same as 'not maintainable'
and,
therefore,
rejection
of
all
the
objections under Section 34 of Act, 1996, is
unsustainable;

(ii) Institution of proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act was not
otherwise
without
departmental
permission, inasmuch as the Executive
Engineer,
vide
communications
dated
05.10.2016
and
24.01.2019
and
Superintending
Engineer,
vide
communications dated 14.10.2016 and
25.01.2019, had permitted filing of such
objections. Such communications have
been annexed alongwith supplementary
affidavit and also alongwith an application
under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. filed in
different appeals;

(iii) Though reliance was placed
by the Commercial Court on an order
dated 19.05.2025 passed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Matter
under Article 227 No. 15777 of 2024
(M/s B.M. Construction Company vs.
State of U.P. and 2 others), the same
would not be fatal to the appellants' case
in these appeals in view of the fact that
on challenge laid by the State of U.P. to
the said order of this Court in Special
Leave to Appeal No. 27340 of 2025 (The
State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs.
M/s B.M. Construction Company and
another), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by
order dated 13.10.2025, has issued notice
to the respondents and, hence, the order
in M/s B.M. Construction Company
(supra) is not final; and

(iv) Interpretation of Clauses
15.05 and 17.07 of L.R. Manual, as done by
the Commercial Court, is misplaced,
inasmuch as though Clause 15.05 applies
to suits where prior sanction of L.R. may
be a procedural necessity, Clause 17.07
applies for Appeals to the District Judge
and, even if objections under Section 34
of the Act are treated to be an appeal
before the District Judge, Clause 17.07
does not contemplate any prior sanction
of the L.R. and, therefore, orders passed
by the Commercial Court cannot be
sustained.

7. In support of his submissions,
learned Standing Counsel has relied upon
the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of U.P. and another vs. Johri Mal,
(2004) 4 SCC 714 and Union of India vs.
Naveen Jindal and another, (2004) 2
SCC 510.
11 All. The Government of U.P. Vs. M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor
1297

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents
have
made
following
submissions:-

(i) Clause 17.07 of L.R. Manual
contains a specific Note indicating that
filing of an appeal without obtaining
permission from the L.R. is permissible
only when necessity to file appeal arises on
the last day of expiry of limitation and only
if there is strong probability of success and
the interest of the State is involved, which is
not the case here;

(ii) The Note appended to subclause (2) of Clause 17.07 further indicates
that after filing of the appeal without
obtaining prior sanction, communication
shall be made to the L.R. for issuing expost facto sanction, which, in the present
case, does not stand reflected from the
record as even after filing of objections
under
Section
34
of
the
Act,
no
communication was made by the appellants
to obtain ex-post facto sanction from the
L.R; and

(iii)
The
case
of
the
respondents being quite strong on
merits, there is no probability of
success in favour of the appellants and,
hence, filing of objections without
obtaining prior sanction from the L.R.
was not, even otherwise, permissible.

9.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made before us and have
perused the material available on record.

10. Since two provisions of L.R.
Manual
have
been
utilized
by
the
Commercial Court as are also reproduced
in the orders impugned in these appeals, we
may refer the same once again to appreciate
their meaning, import and applicability.
Clauses 15.05 and 17.07 of L.R. Manual
are reproduced as under:-

"15.05. Authority for institution
of suits by the Government-No suit with a
valuation exceeding Rs. 2,500 on behalf of
the State shall be instituted in any court
without the prior sanction of the Legal
Remembrancer."

17.07. Appeal to District Judge-

(1) The Legal Remembrancer
shall, on receipt of papers and as soon as
may be, give instructions for an appeal
being/or not being filed, as the case may
be.

(2) Instructions may, in this
behalf,
be
given
by
the
Legal
Remembrancer sue moto and in the
absence of a proposal from the head of
Department/District office.

Note-
In
cases
the
District
Government Counsel has advised appeal
before
the
District
Judge
and
no
instructions are received by him from the
Legal Remembrancer even in the last day
of expiry of limitation then he may file an
appeal on that day if there is strong
probability of success and only the Interest
of the State is involved, He shall
communicate immediately the reasons
therefor to the Legal Remembrancer for
issuing ex-post-facto sanction for filing
appeal."

11. A bare perusal of Clause 15.05
indicates that the same has no application
in the present case, inasmuch as an
objection under Section 34 of the Act, 1996
cannot be equated with a suit and,
therefore, necessity to obtain prior sanction
of the L.R. does not arise in such cases. As
regards Clause 17.07, though the said
provision applies for Appeal to the District
Judge, we may treat the provision as also
applicable to objections under Section 34
of the Act, 1996 as there is no separate
provision in the L.R. Manual making
reference to objections under Section 34
1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nor could there be any such provision as
L.R. Manual is of the era when the Act of
1996 had not even come into force.

12. A comparison of Clauses 15.05
and 17.07 indicates that though the former
contains a prohibition that a suit involving
valuation over and above Rs. 2,500 on
behalf of the State shall not be instituted
without prior sanction of the L.R., Clause
17.07 does not incorporate any such
language. It only provides that L.R. shall,
on receipt of papers and as soon as may be,
give instructions for an appeal being/or not
being filed, as the case may be.

13. As far as note appended to subClause (2) of Clause 17.07, though filing of
appeal in absence of instructions received
from L.R. is permissible when the appeal
is filed on the last day of expiry of
limitation, the Court has to see as to when
there is a provision for communicating
with the L.R. for issuance of ex-post
facto
sanction,
even
if
no
such
communication is made, whether the
appeal or objections under Section 34
could be dismissed as not maintainable.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Johri Mal (supra), discussed a
situation
where
necessity
to
obtain
permission from the L.R. could arise and,
after
making
reference
to
various
judgments, it was held in paragraph No. 42
that the Legal Remembrancer Manual
contains executive instructions which
even do not meet the requirements of
clause
(3)
of
Article
166
of
the
Constitution
and
that
Legal
Remembrancer Manual is not a law
within the meaning of Article 13 of the
Constitution of India, vide Union of
India vs. Naveen Jindal & Anr., JT 2004
(2) SC 1.

15. In the case of Johri Mal reference
was made to judgment in the case of
Naveen Jindal (supra), which dealt with
the aspect as to what would fall within the
meaning and import of 'Law.' Paragraphs
No. 28 and 29 of the judgment read as
under:-

"28. Before we proceed further, it
is necessary to deal with the question,
whether Flag Code is "law"? Flag Code
concededly
contains
the
executive
instructions of the Central Government. It
is stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs,
which is competent to issue the instructions
contained in the Flag Code and all matters
relating thereto are one of the items of
business allocated to the said Ministry by
the President under the Government of
India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961
framed in terms of Article 77 of the
Constitution
of
India.
The
question,
however, is as to whether the said executive
instruction is "law" within the meaning of
Article 13 of the Constitution of India.
Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India
reads thus :

"13. (3) (a) "Law" includes any
Ordinance,
order
bye-law,
rule,
regulation, notification, custom or usage
having in the territory of India the force
of law."

29. A bare perusal of the said
provision would clearly go to show that
executive instructions would not fall
within the aforementioned category. Such
executive instructions may have the force of
law for some other purposes; as for
example those instructions which are
issued as a supplement to the legislative
power in terms of clause (1) of Article 77 of
the Constitution of India. The necessity as
regard determination of the said question
has arisen as the Parliament has not
chosen to enact a statute which would
11 All. The Government of U.P. Vs. M/s Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor
1299
confer at least a statutory right upon a
citizen of India to fly a National Flag. An
executive
instruction
issued
by
the
appellant herein can any time be replaced
by another set of executive instructions and
thus deprive Indian citizens from flying
National
Flag.
Furthermore,
such
a
question will also arise in the event if it be
held that right to fly the National Flag is a
fundamental or a natural right within the
meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India; as for the purpose of regulating the
exercise of right of freedom guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) a law
must be made."

16. In view of above discussion, as
L.R.
Manual
does
not
meet
the
requirements of "Law" as per constitutional
provisions, therefore, filing of objections
under Section 34 without obtaining pre or
post sanction from the L.R., would not by
itself
render
the
objections
as
not
maintainable.

17. Insofar as judgment of this Court
in the case of M/s B.M. Construction
Company (supra) is concerned, the same
apparently does not even refer to Clause
17.07 and though learned Single Judge was
dealing
with
the
maintainability
of
objections under Section 34 of the Act,
1996, instead of testing the same as per
Clause 17.07, reference was made to
Clause 15.05 which, as aforesaid, applies to
suits
and
has
no
application
to
Appeals/Applications to the District Judge
and also objections under Section 34 of the
Act.

18. Before concluding the judgment,
we may also make reference to the
judgment in United Bank of India vs.
Naresh Kumar and others, (1996) 6 SCC
660, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dealt with a question as to when a plaint is
instituted by an officer without authority to
sign the same, whether the suit could be
thrown out. After discussing Order VI Rule
14 and Order XXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C., it
was observed that on procedural defects
which do not go to the root of the matter,
proceedings should not be permitted to be
thrown away, otherwise the same would
defeat a just cause. It was further observed
that in any case, if the appellate court was
of the view that there was some procedural
defect, it ought to have exercised its
jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 27 (1)(b)
of C.P.C. requiring production of authority,
in order to ensure that injustice is not done
by rejection of a genuine claim.

19. Although, the matter before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar
(supra) had arisen from a situation where
suit for recovery of money was instituted
by United Bank of India and provisions
under Order XXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. were
discussed, we are making observations
based upon the judgment so as to examine
validity of the orders impugned in these
appeals that have been passed referring to
mere procedural irregularity, if at all it
existed
and,
therefore,
applying
the
principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar (supra)
read with other judgments referred to
herein-above, we arrive at a conclusion that
rejection of objections under Section 34
was not at all justified.

20. The letters/communications dated
05.10.2016 and 24.04.2019 issued by
Executive
Engineer
and
those
dated
14.10.2016 and 25.04.2019 issued by
Superintending Engineer reflect that prior
to filing of the objections under Section 34
of the Act, authorities had exchanged intradepartmental communications as regards
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission/necessity to file such objections
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
objections were without any authority
under the law. Considering the significance
of the said letters, we are also inclined to
accept and admit the same on record of
these appeals, as the Commercial Court did
not even grant time to the appellants to cure
deficiency, if any. The application for
additional evidence, accordingly, stands
allowed.

21. As far as submissions made by
learned counsel for the respondents that
appellants have a weak case and there is no
chance of their success, we are not inclined to
make any observation in this regard as the
Commercial Court has not examined merits
of the objections under Section 34 of the Act,
1996.

22. We are, therefore, satisfied that the
Commercial Court has erred in passing the
orders impugned and are inclined to set aside
the same and remit the matter back to the
Commercial Court for deciding all the
objections on merits.

23. Consequently, all the appeals are
allowed.

24. The orders dated 04.07.2025,
10.06.2025 and 10.06.2025 passed by the
Commercial Court, Prayagraj respectively in
Arbitration Cases No. 20 of 2023, 14 of 2023
and 15 of 2023 are hereby set aside.

25. Arbitration Cases No. 20 of 2023, 14
of 2023 and 15 of 2023 are restored to their
original number and status and the same shall
be decided on merits by the Commercial
Court after hearing the parties concerned
within a period of four months from the date
of production of certified/authentic copy of
this order before it.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 11338 of 2025
Connected with Other Cases

Ashok Raghav ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.K. Mishra, Ashish Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Hare Ram

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether Secretary of society did not have
authority to institute and carry on the suit

(ii) Whether the trust/society is not a public
religious institution, hence, Act No. 13 of 1972 is
applicable.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227;The Societies Registration Act, 1860Section
;
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act-1972-Section 2(bb), 3(r),
3(s)- After sub-section (3) of Section 2
was omitted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995
which came into effect from 26.09.1994
and Section 2(bb) having been inserted in
Section 2 of the Act of 1972 which lays
down exemption from the operation of Act
of 1972, it is thus clear that any building
belonging to or vested in public charitable
or public religious institution, the Act of
1972 was not applicable- Once it is clear
that both trust and society formed for the
benefit of public at large, and had a
character
of
charitable
and
religious