# U.P. Health System Devp. Project Lko v. M/S Goel Computers Lko

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 464
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 7 of 2014
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-health-system-devp-project-lko-v-m-s-goel-computers-lko-54578
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter V, Rules 2(ii)(b) and
2(ii)(d) - Jurisdiction of Single Judge -
Value of appeal exceeding fifty lakh
rupees - Notification dated 23.05.2022,
deleting the words 'in which value of the
appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction does
not exceed fifty lakh rupees', was issued -
Applicability to the pending appeal - Held,
amendment
brought
about
by
the
notification dated 23.05.2022 in Rule
8 All. U.P. Health System Devp. Project Lko. Vs. M/s Goel Computers Lko.
465
2(ii)(b) of Chapter V and Rule 2(ii)(d) of
the same Chapter of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, by which the words
fifty lakh rupees etc. have been deleted
applies to pending appeals also except of
course those appeals where under the
statute which provides the remedy of
appeal, it is to be heard by a Division
Bench. (Para 9)

B.
Amendment
in
procedural
law
-
Applicability to pending cases - Held, the
provision, in which the amendment has
been made, is a procedural provision,
therefore, normally any amendment in
such a provision even if it is a deletion it
has a retrospective effect and applies to
pending proceedings also. (Para 8)

Issue decided. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow (now
retired) was a senior officer, who was the
custodian of assessing of the applicant and
had committed a grossly reprehensible act
and in case he is not punished, it would
send down a wrong signal to other officials
of Income Tax Department that even such
unbusiness like conduct invites only a
warning or fine, as Courts are flooded with
matters, where orders are passed.

64. Accordingly, a fine of Rs.25,000/-
along with simple imprisonment for a
period of one week is awarded to the
contemnor-Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2,
Lucknow (now retired). In case of default,
he would suffer one day's further simple
imprisonment.

65. The contemnor-opposite party
(Mr.
Harish
Gidwani,
Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2,
Lucknow (now retired)) will surrender
before the Senior Registrar of this Court
3.30p.m. on 9.8.2024 who will send him
jail to serve out the sentence.

66. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to submit a report by 12.8.2024
to this Court in regard to compliance of the
order.

67.

Resultantly,
the
contempt
application is finally disposed off.

68. All the pending applications, if
any pending, are disposed of accordingly.

Order after deliver of Judgment:

(i) After delivery of judgment on
9.8.2024,
Shri
Neerav
Chitravanshi,
learned counsel for the opposite party
assisted by Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned
Advocate
requested
that
effect
and
operation of the judgment dated 9.8.2024
be extended for ten days.

(ii) Ms. Radhika Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant has serious
objection for extension of time for its
applicability.

(iii) In view of the fact that the matter
has been lingering since long, the prayer
made by Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned
counsel for the opposite party-contemnor
for
enforcement
of
judgment
dated
9.8.2024 after ten days is rejected.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 464
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

First Appeal No. 7 of 2014

U.P. Health System Devp. Project Lko.
 ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Goel Computers Lko. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sudeep Kumar, C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
P. Chakravarty

A. Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter V, Rules 2(ii)(b) and
2(ii)(d) - Jurisdiction of Single Judge -
Value of appeal exceeding fifty lakh
rupees - Notification dated 23.05.2022,
deleting the words 'in which value of the
appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction does
not exceed fifty lakh rupees', was issued -
Applicability to the pending appeal - Held,
amendment
brought
about
by
the
notification dated 23.05.2022 in Rule
8 All. U.P. Health System Devp. Project Lko. Vs. M/s Goel Computers Lko.
465
2(ii)(b) of Chapter V and Rule 2(ii)(d) of
the same Chapter of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, by which the words
fifty lakh rupees etc. have been deleted
applies to pending appeals also except of
course those appeals where under the
statute which provides the remedy of
appeal, it is to be heard by a Division
Bench. (Para 9)

B.
Amendment
in
procedural
law
-
Applicability to pending cases - Held, the
provision, in which the amendment has
been made, is a procedural provision,
therefore, normally any amendment in
such a provision even if it is a deletion it
has a retrospective effect and applies to
pending proceedings also. (Para 8)

Issue decided. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Om Prakash Agarwal & ors. Vs Vishan Dayal
Rajpoot & anr.; (2019) 14 SCC 526

2. I.A. No.99210 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 1842
of 2021; ECGC Ltd. Vs Mokul Shriram EPC JV

3. Ultratech Cement Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of Raj. &
ors.; (2021) 12 SCC 147

4. Manujendra Dutt Vs Purnedu Prosad Roy
Chowdhury & ors.; AIR 1967 SC 1419

5. K. Kapen Chako Vs Provident Investment
Company (P) Ltd.; (1977) 1 SCC 593

6. Sudhir G. Angur & ors. Vs M. Sanjeev & ors.;
(2006) 1 SCC 141

7. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & ors. Vs St. of
Maharashtra & ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 602

8. Mohd. Idris & ors. Vs Sat Narain & ors., AIR
1966 SC 1499

9.
S.
Sundaram
Pillai
&
ors.
Vs
V.R.
Pattabiraman & ors.; (1985) SCC 591

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. &
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard.

2. This is a first appeal under Section
37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996.

3. On 10.05.2014, we had passed the
following order :-

"1. This matter was earlier being
heard by a Division Bench. However, in
view of Notification dated 23.05.2022, the
matter was placed before Single Judge
Bench on 16.04.2024 and thereafter it
continued to be listed before a Single Judge
Bench but on 02.05.2024 following order
was passed :-
 "Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
submits that this First Appeal under
Section
37
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act 1996 having valuation of
Rs.75,66,787/- filed before this court is
cognizable by the Division Bench. It was
going on before the Hon'ble Division
Bench. However as per office report dated
16.04.2024 in view of Notification dated
23.05.2022, it has been put up before this
Single Bench.

He submits that by means of
Notification dated 23 May 2022, the Rule
2(ii)(b) of Chapter V and Rule 2(ii)(d) of
Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court
Rules has been amended and the valuation
of Rs.50 lakh has been deleted. The instant
appeal is covered under Rule 2(ii)(d) of
Chapter V, for which the amendment has
been made w.e.f.01.07.2022, therefore the
appeal filed thereafter shall be covered by
the said amendment and not the present
appeal. Thus the submission is that this
appeal has wrongly been sent by the office
before this court, whereas it has not been
directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Shri Amit Chandra, Advocate
holding brief of Shri P. Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the respondents does
not dispute that the appeal was filed before
the Division Bench and the matter was in
active consideration before the Division
Bench and also does not dispute the
contention of learned counsel for the
appellant.

In view of above, let the matter be
placed before the concerned Hon'ble
Division Bench, who may consider it.

As prayed list in the next week. "
 2. The learned Single Judge it
appears has opined that as amendment of
Rule 2(ii)(d) of Chapter V of the Allahabad
High Court Rules vide Allahabad High
Court (Amendment) Rules, 2022 dated
23.05.2022 has come into force on
01.07.2022, therefore, this will apply only
to appeals filed after the said date i.e. after
01.07.2022 and not to pending appeals.
This is how the matter has again come back
to the Division Bench.

3. In our view, prima facie, the
amendment is essentially procedural one.

4. Order reserved on this issue."

4. Thereafter we posted the matter
again by the following order passed on
12.07.2022 :-

"(1) We had reserved our order
on 10.05.2024.

(2) Having considered the matter
as the Rule in question has been framed by
Allahabad High Court, we would like to
have the opinion of the High Court itself as
to the object/ intent behind the amendment
made in Rule 2(ii)(b) of Chapter V and
Rule 2(ii)(d) of Chapter V of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, whether the
amendments are intended to apply to
pending proceedings also?
 (3) Let Sri Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the High Court seek
instructions and assist the Court on the
next date.

(4) The appeal be listed on
18.07.2024 as first case of the day.

(5) Office to communicate this
order to Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the High Court."

5. Prior to the notification of the High
Court dated 23.05.2022, Rule 2 (ii) (b)
contained in Chapter-V of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 dealing with
Jurisdiction of a Single Judge was to the
effect as under :-

"Except as provided by these
Rules or other law, the following cases
shall be heard and disposed of by a Judge
sitting alone, namely :

(i) ........,

(ii) (a) .........,

(ii) (b) a First Appeal instituted
before or after the commencement of the
U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 2015
(U.P. Act No. 14 of 2015) from a decree in
which value of the appeal for the purpose
of jurisdiction does not exceed fifty lakh
rupees;

(ii) (c)..........,

(ii) (d) any other Civil Appeal in
which the value of the appeal does not
exceed fifty lakh rupees."

6.

By
the
notification
dated
23.05.2022, which has been kept on record,
the words 'in which value of the appeal for
the purpose of jurisdiction does not exceed
fifty lakh rupees' were deleted in Clause (b)
and (d) of Rule 2 (ii) of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 referred hereinabove.
The provision in question is a procedural
provision and we have to consider the
effect of said deletion.
8 All. Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta Vs. Vandana Gupta
467

7. Today, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra
informs the Court that the matter has been
examined by the High Court at the
competent level and according to the High
Court the amendment referred in the
aforesaid order is to have retrospective
effect and this was the intent behind the
amendment, as is evident from the
discussion and the notings in the file
preceding the said amendment. He has also
relied upon the decision in the case(s) of (i)
Om Prakash Agarwal since deceased
through legal representatives and others Vs.
Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and another, reported
in (2019) 14 SCC 526, (ii) ECGC Limited Vs.
Mokul Shriram EPC JV, I.A. No.99210 of
2021 in Civil Appeal No.1842 of 2021, (iii)
Ultratech Cement Ltd. & another Vs. State
of Rajasthan & others, (2021) 12 SCC 147,
(iv) Manujendra Dutt Vs. Purnedu Prosad
Roy Chowdhury & others, AIR 1967 SC
1419, (v) K. Kapen Chako Vs. Provident
Investment Company (P) Ltd. (1977) 1 SCC
593, (vi) Sudhir G. Angur & others Vs. M.
Sanjeev & others, (2006) 1 SCC 141, (vii)
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & others Vs. State
of Maharashtra & others, (1994) 4 SCC 602,
(viii) Mohd. Idris & others Vs. Sat Narain &
others, AIR 1966 SC 1499, (ix) S. Sundaram
Pillai & others Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman &
others, (1985) SCC 591, which were
considered at that time by the High Court while
bringing the amendment.

8. We are also of the opinion that the
provision in which the amendment has been
made as referred hereinabove is a procedural
provision, therefore, normally any amendment
in such a provision even if it is a deletion it has
a retrospective effect and applies to pending
proceedings also. No appellant has any
vested right to have his appeal heard by a
Single Judge Bench. The only right is that the
appeal be heard by the High Court whether it
be heard by a Division Bench or by a Single
Judge Bench is immaterial. This does not
involve any change of forum also because the
forum remains the same, which is the High
Court. In either eventuality the next remedy
would be before Hon'ble the Supreme Court
and not before this Court. In taking this view,
we are supported by the law enumerated and
propounded
in
the
precedents
referred
hereinabove.

9. For all these reasons, we hold that the
amendment brought about by the notification
dated 23.05.2022 in Rule 2(ii)(b) of Chapter V
and Rule 2(ii)(d) of the same Chapter of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, by which
the words fifty lakh rupees etc. have been
deleted applies to pending appeals also except
of course those appeals where under the statute
which provides the remedy of appeal, it is to
be heard by a Division Bench, in that case of
course, the said Rules will not apply as there
would be no question of pecuniary jurisdiction
in maintaining such appeal.

10. Let the Registry take note of this
order and list the appeal accordingly. As a
consequence of the aforesaid, this appeal will
now be heard by Single Judge Bench which
may have been assigned such appeals.

11. List this appeal before the
appropriate Bench on 09.09.2024.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 467
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

First Appeal No. 11 of 2023

Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta
 ...Appellant