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 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:- "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 afore-quote 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." 4. On perusal of the afore-quote 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." 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:- " 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. "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. 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 afore-quote 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." 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 . 8. 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 . 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 sub-clause (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 ex-post 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. 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 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. 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 sub-Clause (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. 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 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. 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 intra-departmental communications as regards 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. 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.