Disposed

Himanshu Pradhan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2021SPLAD/58/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a writ petition and a disciplinary order. The court held the recovery dispute required arbitration per the agreement clause. It dismissed the challenge to the disciplinary order, directing the appellant to file a revision under Section 128 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified; appellant granted liberty to challenge the September 26, 2020 order under Section 128 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.

Himanshu Pradhan Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 58 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Himanshu Pradhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Rai,Chandan Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satya Nisth Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Order on Exemption Application

¶6

The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the High Court is allowed.

¶7

The defect stands cured.

¶8

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satya Nisth Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5.

¶10

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 10.12.2020 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed in reference to Clause 27 of the agreement. The clause aforesaid provides for arbitration in case of dispute. The writ petition was filed to challenge the recovery of the amount due to shortage of 56.801 metric tons paddy.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that apart from the challenge to the recovery, petitioner-appellant had even challenged the order dated 26th September, 2020. A direction for disciplinary action and suspension has been given by the authority not competent for it. The issue

¶12

aforesaid has not been addressed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant may suffer suspension as well as the disciplinary action.

¶13

We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and find that so far as the challenge of the recovery is concerned, the learned Single Judge rightly relegated the appellant for arbitration as per Clause 27 of the agreement.

¶14

So far as the challenge to the order dated 26th September, 2020 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant was specifically asked as to whether any order of suspension has been passed or any disciplinary enquiry has been initiated as on date. The counsel was fair to state that neither any order of suspension has been issued nor disciplinary enquiry has been initiated till date. It may however be initiated any time.

¶15

What we find that the order dated 26th September, 2020 can be challenged by taking remedy given under Section 128 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act of 1965.

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is modified in reference to the challenge to the order dated 26th September, 2020. The petitioner-appellant is given liberty to assail the order on all available grounds by taking the remedy as provided under Section 128 of the Act of 1965.

¶17

The appeal is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.1.2021/ V.S.Singh

Himanshu Pradhan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Pradhan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhunjishaw Khusharo Ghandhi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Regional Manager Uco Bank and Another Vs Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj

Reeta Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reena Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shubhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avanish Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others