Government of U.P. vs Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra
Government of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Mohan Goel, Contractor – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajiv Singh
For the Respondent: Dilip Kumar, Sanjai Kumar Singh, Ashish Jaiswal

Table of Content
1. initial basis of appeals (Para 1)
2. court's focus on maintainability (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. arguments presented by parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. analysis of l.r. manual provisions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final judgment and order (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

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 appea