Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited ... vs Raj Kumar Singh And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9605 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 564 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited And Another
 
Respondent :- Raj Kumar Singh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ved Byas Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayub Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

Order on Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 2 of 2021

Exemption application is allowed.

The appellant is exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge.

Order on Special Appeal

Heard counsel for the parties.

By this appeal, challenge is made to the judgement dated 05.03.2020 whereby the learned Single Judge decided the petition based on concession recorded by the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The appeal has been preferred by Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills stating that original amount of gratuity has already been paid and yet liability of interest has been imposed. A writ petition for it was not even maintainable.

We have considered the submissions aforesaid and find no argument to this effect before the learned Single Judge. The counsel appearing for the appellant did not utter a single word to oppose the statement made by learned Standing Counsel for the State regarding payment of gratuity with interest. It is otherwise not clarified as to why the appellants are not liable to pay the interest if there was delay in payment of gratuity.

Learned counsel has made a reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of 'General Manager (Pradhan Prabhandhak) Kisan Sahkari Chini Vs. Kalim Haider and Ors.' Special Appeal Defective No. 114 of 2019 decided on 18.04.2019.

We have gone through the judgment which does not propound a ratio on any of the issue. The order under challenge is not based on concession of the appellant but the statement of the Standing Counsel to which no objection regarding a direction for payment of interest was made. The counsel for the appellant was asked the reason of silence before the learned Single Judge if the interest was not payable. He could not answer the aforesaid and as we have already find that judgment (supra) does not propound a ratio. Thus, the judgement aforesaid does not provide any assistance to the appellant.

Thus, even on merit, there is no ground to cause interference on the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge without any objection from the appellant despite their presence. It was either regarding maintainability of the writ petition or payment of interest on the delayed amount of gratuity.

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.8.2021

Madhurima

(Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, ACJ.)