NOMINAL INDEXDr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw...
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202
Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203
Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Saurabh Mukund vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Its Joint Director Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209
Rajendra Prasad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210
Himanshu Kanaujiya vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211
Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 212
Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Shilpa Alias Shikha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215
Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217
Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218
Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 219
Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 220
Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221
M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223
M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224
Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227
Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228
Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229
Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230
North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231
Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232
Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234
International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235
Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236
Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237
Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239
Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 241
Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. M/S Yauk Engineers 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 242
Meena Anand vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243
Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245
Shreya Verma And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
Owais Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250
Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
Sheel Mohan Bansal V. State Of U.P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 252
Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253
Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254
Shri Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Aliyari vs Ranjana And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256
Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division vs. Mahesh Chandra And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 257
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 258
Pooja Rajput Corpus And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Brijpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261
Ram Kishan Bairwa vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262
Jay Prakash And Another v. Anjula Singh Mahaur And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 263
Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Mithilesh Maurya And Another Vs. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265
M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
State of UP and 3 others vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267
Dhananjay Singh and another vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Alok Jha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 269
National Highways Authority Of India vs Shri Krishna Uchchter Madhyamic Vidhyalaya And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney vs. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271
Pasru @ Ismail vs. The State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 272
Priti Ravindra Shukla vs. Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 273
Nanhaku Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 274
Akhilesh Kumar vs. Allahabad Central University Through Its Registrar And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Reddy Veerraju Chowdary vs. Insolvency Professional/Resolution Professional, C.A. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 276
R. Shankar Raman Whole Time Director And Chief Financial Officer vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 277
Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Shree Vindavan Auto Sales v. State of U.P. along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 279
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 602 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal while exercising its contempt jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lies before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court held that no such order can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6145 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The Allahabad High Court has held that after a long gap of time, a teacher whose services have been regularised cannot be terminated merely on grounds of lack of qualifications at the time of initial appointment.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajit Kumar held that “once the regularisation of appointment has already taken place, such teacher becomes a permanent member of service and no such teacher's service can be dispensed with on the ground that there were some inherent lack of qualification at the time of initial appointment.”
Case title - Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1762 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court held that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dr Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari 1970, a bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary of the husband while determining maintenance amount.
Case title - Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204 [SECOND APPEAL No. - 428 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a suit for mere declaration of civil death is maintainable and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 merely because the plaintiff did not claim further relief.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal further noted that there is no bar under Section 34 of the 1963 Act for filing a suit for the declaration of a civil death of another person if the plaintiff is a legal heir of such a person and such legal character of civil death is for his benefit and the same is attributed to such legal character.
Case title - Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a resignation tendered by a government servant can be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance.
A bench of Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus while examining Rules 6 and 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2000, which deal with the matters of resignation from service by government servants.
Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206
The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days.
While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that “the proceedings have been conducted in reckless manner which is other than bona fide.”
Case title - Saurabh Mukund vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Its Joint Director Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The Allahabad High Court observed that in the normal course, a person summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is entitled to receive at least a summary of the accusations, if not the actual copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
This allows them to adequately prepare themselves or gather pertinent documents to respond to any inquiries during the interrogation by the ED, a bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan noted.
Case title - Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38288 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC is not maintainable against a husband at the instance of a 'second wife', however, in such cases, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 may get attracted if there is a demand of dowry.
“…for the dowry, the performance of marriage is not necessary, and even a marriage contract is sufficient. If a male and female contracted for marriage and cohabiting together and the male partner makes any dowry demand from the female partner, then ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted,” ruled a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.
Case Title: Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209 [WRIT - A No. - 1453 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209
While granting relief to Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the Allahabad High Court has held the 'Begar' is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
“Article 23 of the Constitution of India has wider implications and scope regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” held Justice Manish Kumar.
Case title - Rajendra Prasad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 79 of 2005]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the conviction of a man who killed a 1-year-old child, observed that human/child sacrifice shocks the conscience of civilized society and the same is required to be condemned by one and all.
With these observations, a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi also upheld the life sentence imposed on the 47-year-old man and dismissed his appeal against conviction.
Case title - Himanshu Kanaujiya vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211
The Allahabad High Court expressed profound concern over the alarming proliferation of fraudulent manpower consultant agencies and fake recruitment firms across the country.
Describing the mushrooming of such fake agencies as "unfortunate", a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that the youth, without knowing the hidden agenda of such fake rackets, are falling prey to such temptations of lucrative jobs and paying huge amounts even by selling the properties held by their families or availing loans from financial institutions with a high rate of interest.
Case Title: Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 20193 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 212
The Allahabad High Court has held that filing an amendment application or substitution application in a pending application for release of property from tenant under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be treated as a second application.
The Court held that in absence of any decision on the merits of first release application, any amendment to it cannot be treated as a second release application under Section 21 of the Act.
Case title - Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in the matter of public examinations, a question should not be considered wrong solely based on its formulation unless it cannot be understood or answered by the candidate.
While acknowledging the argument that a few questions could be better framed, the Court said that this fact alone does not invalidate them.
“Unless it is shown that the question is wrong or the formulation of question is such that the candidate could not have understood the question or answered it, we would not be justified in interfering with the question itself,” a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed.
UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Prohibits Live-In Relation Between Interfaith Couples: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shilpa Alias Shikha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2330 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 214
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 3(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 prohibits live-in relationships like a matrimonial bond between couples of different religions.
A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed thus while disposing of a writ petition moved by a Hindu girl and her interfaith partner (petitioner No.2) seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against petitioner no. 2 under Sections 363 & 366 IPC.
Case Title: Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 245 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215
The Allahabad High Court has held that divorce petition cannot be dismissed under Section 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if acts of cruelty which were once condoned by the spouse are repeated.
The Court held that merely because in the petition it was stated that the husband had condoned the adultery and lived with the wife, it cannot be said that subsequent adultery by the wife was condoned. The Court held that one paragraph of the petition cannot be read in isolation to the other averments made in the divorce petition. Since the wife had continued her relationship outside of marriage, the Court held that there was cause of action for filing the divorce petition.
Case title - Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the ceremony of Kanyadan is not essential for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act.
"Thus, Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage," a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed.
Case Title: State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217
The Allahabad High Court has held that Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration by the Inquiry Officer to enable the delinquent employee a chance to effectively defend himself.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“Recording of reasons in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry officer has a definite purpose to subserve. It gives an opportunity to the delinquent employee to offer his explanation on the issues that have weighed with the disciplinary authority. In a case where the disciplinary authority does not record reasons for his disagreement with the opinion of the inquiry officer the delinquent employee will be denuded of his right to effectively explain his defense regarding reasons of disagreement.”
Case title - Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4152 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if a woman waives off her right to claim maintenance from her husband at the time of divorce by mutual consent, she cannot later demand the same.
A bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit opined thus while ALLOWING a revision plea moved by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court passed in a plea moved by his wife under Section 125 CrPC directing him to pay Rs.25K per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.
Case Title: Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 117 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik for filing public interest litigation on the issues already decided by the High Court.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held
“The repeated attempt on part of the petitioner to raise the issue which already stood concluded by filing petitions in one form or the other in the name of Public Interest Litigation cannot be countenanced under any circumstance. The attempts made, as noticed hereinbefore, essentially amount to manipulation and attempt to mislead the Court, which action of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with heavy hand.”
Case Title: Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5761 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 220
The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure at the practice of development authority allowing illegal constructions to be raised beyond the sanctioned plan and legalizing the same by way of compounding. The Court held that such practice of allowing illegal construction by relaxing and deviating from the building bye-laws must stop.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that
“Building bye-laws and plans are supposed to be followed scrupulously so that urban development is allowed in a planned manner. What is, however, disturbing is the practice of allowing constructions in excess of approved plan and thereafter entertaining compounding plans, ostensibly with the purpose of augmenting the financial interest of the development authority.”
Case Title: Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3032 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221
While treating the pension as the monthly income of the husband, the Allahabad High Court has held that awarding 25% of the monthly income of the husband as maintenance is not excessive.
The Court relied on Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari where the Supreme Court held that
“25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.”
Case Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 619 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Allahabad High Court has quashed assessment order taxing Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007 on grounds that it is not provided in the schedule to the Act.
Provisional assessment order against the petitioner was passed on 19.04.2006 under Section 4-A (Realization Of Tax Through Manufacturer) of the Uttar Pradesh Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000 read with Rule 41(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rule 2000. Final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2008 under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.150 OF 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223
While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Allahabad High Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.
“High Courts, in their capacity as revisional bodies, are entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the sanctity of such judgments and orders, and such, should not lightly disturb them unless compelling reasons of paramount significance necessitate such intervention,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 916 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that quantification of stock was based on eye estimate and not in accordance with law, the confiscation order as well as the penalty order are liable to be set aside.
“When the Appellate Authority had come to the finding that the officers in the survey did not carry out the quantification of the stock in the correct manner, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to uphold the confiscation and penalty,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 110 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details.
While dealing with Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 the Supreme Court in M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited held that burden to prove that claim for input tax credit and the genuineness of the transaction lies solely on the assesee. The Court held that mere production of invoices and payments made by cheques is not enough to prove that the assesee is entitled to ITC.
Case title - Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226
The Allahabad High Court has DENIED BAIL to a man accused of conspiring to kill Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari over his alleged remark made against Prophet Muhammad.
Observing that it is a case of "extreme communal hatred" wherein the deceased (Tiwari) was eliminated by way of a "brutal daylight murder", a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery denied bail to alleged conspirator Syed Asim Ali.
Case title - Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9169 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the POSCO Act 2012, regarded as a "Special Statute", offences cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix-victim.
"Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise. Merely because, the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings [under the POCSO Act]," a bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed.
Case Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 40 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228
The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Section 54(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides for circumstances under which penalties can be imposed on an assesee. It is provided that where an assessing authority is satisfied that an assesee has committed any wrong mentioned therein, penalty can be imposed after giving due opportunity of hearing to such assesee.
Case Title: Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229 [WRIT - A No. - 19256 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229
The Allahabad High Court has held that in absence of any rule or regulation in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulation, 1975 and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976, neither a show cause notice can be issued nor departmental proceedings can be initiated against an employee after his retirement.
While quashing the proceedings against the retired employee, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “in lack of provisions in rules and regulations, after retirement, no show cause notice or departmental proceeding can be initiated against any employee.”
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230 [WRIT - A No. - 13670 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230
The Allahabad High Court has held that a termination of a contractual employee by the employer in terms of the conditions of the contract or their violation cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there cannot be a violation of Article 14 or Article 16 where the terms of the contract are per se not arbitrary.
The Court held that such contractual disputes must be referred under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction.
It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs.
Case Title: Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232 [WRIT - C No. - 5832 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232
The Allahabad High Court has held that where revenue has illegally detained excess stamp duty collected by the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, interest must be paid by the Government even if there is no provision providing for such interest.
In September 2013, an order of refund of Rs.5,35,454/- was passed in favor of the petitioner. However, the amount was refunded in December 2023. Petitioner moved an application seeking interest on the delayed payment of the refund amount.
Case Title: Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [WRIT - A No. - 556 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Allahabad High Court has held that the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) and Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not require the person seeking compassionate appointment to be dependent on the deceased employee.
While directing the authorities to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment moved by the married daughter of the deceased employee, Justice Abdul Moin held,
“Rules, 1974 only defines the word Family as per Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5, which specifically governs the compassionate appointment, also does not indicate that a person seeking compassionate appointment should be a dependent of the deceased government servant. It cannot be a case that when a word is not included under the Rules, 1974, the respondents may add any word in order to deprive the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.”
Case Title: The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234 [WRIT - C No. - 292 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234
The Allahabad High Court has held that 1955 Act is a special act governing the conditions of work for newspaper employees including working journalists and non-working journalists and will have overriding effect over the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
“The Act of 1947 only supplements the cause of working journalists, but in no way it restricts in reaping the benefits provided under the Act 1955, especially under Section 17, which is a scheme of recovering of dues of an employee from its employer,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
Case Title: International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235 [CONTEMPT APPEAL No. - 2 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235
The Allahabad High Court has held that intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order issuing notices to parties passed by a Single Judge sitting in contempt jurisdiction.
In the contempt petition, Single Judge issued notices and directed district administration shall not stop construction of those persons, who are not the party in the First Appeal From Order No.334 of 2022. Aggrieved from the interim order, contempt appeal was filed before the Court on grounds that the vendees of various defendants were also bound by the decision of the High Court in FAFO.
Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236 Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236
The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237 [WRIT - C No. - 13556 of 2021]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237
The Allahabad High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to entertain application under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be based solely on the location of the secured asset.
The bench comprising of Justice Jaspreet Singh and Justice Manish Mathur held that the DRT in whose jurisdiction part cause of action has arisen shall also have jurisdiction over applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Case title - Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibit the proceeding u/s 138/141 NI Act only against the corporate debtor and not against the natural persons like the directors of the company for their vicarious liability.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus while dismissing a plea moved by one Gurmeher Singh challenging the proceeding of a Complaint Case u/s 138 NI Act pending before Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Gorakhpur.
Case title - Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2322 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has directed that the police authorities/investigation officers must ensure that in every POCSO Act case, a medical report determining the victim's age is drawn up at the outset under the mandate of Section 164A of CrPC read with Section 27 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the same is submitted to the Court without any delay.
The Court directed thus while noting that the discrepancies in the victim's age in POCSO cases can substantially affect the rights and liberties of the accused.
Case title - Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12653 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240
Considering his unconditional apology tendered in the police station, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Riyaz alias Ovaisi, who has been accused of abusing Lord Rama on Facebook.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him the relief while noting that the accused does not have any prior criminal record and has been in custody since January 28, 2024. The Court also considered that all alleged offenses against him carry a maximum punishment of three years.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6346 OF 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 241
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh for raising objections under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds which were decided in application under Section 34 but were not raised in appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
While dismissing the appeal, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held
“The tactics employed by the Petitioners (State of Uttar Pradesh) characterized by their persistent delay and obstructionist behaviour, merit unequivocal condemnation and necessitate the imposition of substantial costs. Delay tactics serve to perpetuate injustice by denying parties their rightful entitlements.”
Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. M/S Yauk Engineers [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No.389 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 242
The Allahabad High Court has held that interference in an arbitral award on grounds of violation of public policy can be done if it is against the substantive provisions of the Act.
The Court held that interference in arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of 'public policy' must be cautiously done as it can lead to excessive judicial review due the subjective and broad interpretation of 'public policy.'
Case title - Meena Anand vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a condition imposed by a Special Anti-Corruption Court on an accused in a money laundering case, directing her to deposit a staggering ₹2.5 crore to secure anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh granted relief to Meena Anand, taking note of the Supreme Court's various rulings against the imposition of onerous bail conditions.
Case title – Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244
The Allahabad High Court directed the passport authorities to decide the application moved by Actress Sapna Choudhary for renewal/re-issue of her passport and pass an order within 1 month.
Asserting that the right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed set aside an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court's order refusing 'no objection' certificate for issuance of Passport.
Case Title: Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT - C No. - 10451 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is fear in the District Judiciary in deciding cases as it may lead to administrative complaints and subsequent transfers.
“They also face transfer application on hideous and absurd allegations of bias, without the slightest fear in the minds of those who make them about consequences. It is difficult for a Judge in the Civil Court to exercise his jurisdiction freely, if he constantly works not just aware of the professional routine of having his orders overturned by a superior Court, but the personal peril of harm to his career, if he were to pass orders of effective consequence which his conscience says he must,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case title – Shreya Verma And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings in connection with a case against a Samajwadi Party (SP) leader and former UP Minister's daughter, Shreya Verma, who was accused of canvassing for his father in the Uttar Pradesh Vidhansabha elections of 2022 without obtaining the necessary permission.
A Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed found faults with the registration of the FIR against Verma and others under Sections 171H and 188 IPC. It observed that the police investigation, in this case, was without jurisdiction, and based on such an invalid investigation report, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was also illegal.
Case title – Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
The Allahabad High Court directed the state government to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to a man illegally detained for three days due to an 'arbitrary' act of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate posted in Jaunpur District.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I also directed the payment of litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/—to the man/petitioner in view of the HC's judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State Of U.P. and 3 Others 2021.
Case Title: Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248 [WRIT TAX No. - 1597 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed.
The Court held that the word “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) is directory in nature as no stipulation is made for the automatic release of goods after the period of 120 days. It held that a levy of interest on the seized asset contemplated under Section 132B (4) does not make the “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) mandatory in nature.
Case Title: M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249 [WRIT TAX No. - 1238 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
The Allahabad High Court has held that Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal had not issued a general mandamus quashing all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the order of Supreme Court was limited to those notices which had been challenged before the Apex Court and various High Courts in India.
In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the Union Government had challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court quashing the reassessment notices issued by the Revenue under Section 148 as being barred by the Finance Act 2021 which had introduced new provisions regarding reassessment proceedings with effect from 01.04.2021.
Case title - Owais Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a criminal case against one Owais Khan accused of making derogatory remarks about Lord Shiva on social media, citing it as a "deliberate act of religious vilification".
"It is incumbent upon the judiciary to send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal consequences," stated a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar as he stressed the importance of maintaining respect for religious beliefs of various communities.
Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251 [WRIT TAX No. - 520 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
While quashing the enhanced assessment order regarding house tax passed by the authorities, the Allahabad High Court held that the authorities acted in undue haste by giving one day's notice for the hearing, which is not sufficient notice.
A notice regarding the enhancement of house tax was issued by the Department on 14.03.2024, fixing 16.03.2024 as the date for the hearing. The notice was served upon an employee of the petitioner on 15.03.2024. On the date of the hearing, the petitioner appeared before the tax Superintendent and sought 20 days adjournment.
Case Title: Sheel Mohan Bansal V. State Of U.P And 2 Others [WRIT C No. 18282 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 252
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked where the property has been transferred by way of gift deed as Section 47-A is applicable to those instruments where stamp duty has been determined based on “market value” and not “value of the property” as is the case in a gift deed.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act provides that if the market value of the property stated in an instrument is less than the minimum value determined under the Act, the registering officer shall refer the same to the Collector for determining the market value and the duty payable on such instrument before registering it.
Case Title: Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253 [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11838/2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253
While quashing criminal proceedings against officers of M/s Himri Estate Private Limited and Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. initiated by Shipra Group, the Allahabad High Court held that defaulter cannot initiate criminal proceedings against creditor/auction purchaser against the auction conducted under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The Court held that grievance regarding auction, transfer of property in such cases must be raised before Debt Recovery Tribunals under the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9337 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254
The Allahabad High Court has held that a written statement jointly filed by various defendants cannot be amended at the behest of one of defendants without express consent from other defendants who had jointly filed the written statement.
The bench of Justice Jayant Banerji held that “where a written statement is jointly filed by a group of defendants, it cannot be amended at the behest of one or more such defendants unless the other defendants who are signatories to the joint written statement, expressly consent to the amendments sought.”
Case Title: Shri Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255 [WRIT - A No. - 13858 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut for denying an increment to the government employee retiring on the day prior to the accrual of the increment.
The Court held that the action of the Nagar Ayukt based on a Government Order was against various judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director (Admn. HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others.
Case title - Aliyari vs Ranjana And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256 [CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 15 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256
In a resolute stance against the propagation of irresponsible accusations against the judicial system, the Allahabad High Court recently imposed Rs. 20,000 costs on a litigant who had sought a transfer of his case alleging bias against the presiding Judge.
"This kind of a tendency of hurling allegations at Courts without the slightest fear of the outcome, if the allegations fail or are found to be made on hollow ground, must be put down with a heavy hand in the larger interest of administration of justice," a bench of Justice JJ Munir remarked as it termed the allegations as 'scandalous and most irresponsible'
Case Title: Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division vs. Mahesh Chandra And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 257 [WRIT - C No. - 61111 of 2012]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 257
The Allahabad High Court has held that while proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Labour Court does not have the power to grant interest to the employee on delayed payment of amount due by the employer. The Court held that proceeding under Section 33C(2) are execution proceedings.
Section 33C (1) provides that where any money is due to an employee from his employer, the employee shall make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him. If the government is satisfied that money is due, application must be forwarded to the collector for recovery of such amount. When amount so due is disputed, the case may be decided by the Labour Court as specified by the Government under Section 33C(2).
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 258 [WRIT - A No. - 18173 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 258
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude cannot be said to be suitable to head any department, much less an educational institution.
“…A candidate who is convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude, such a candidate cannot be taken to be suitable candidate to hold the position of head of any institution or department much less an educational institution as he has not only to run the administration but to ensure discipline with high moral values and character to demonstrate,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case title – Pooja Rajput Corpus And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 259
The Allahabad High Court on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Nari Niketan/Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Nagar for its 'shocking' decision to send a 15-year-old girl, who was residing with her mother, to a children's home.
The court directed that the amount be handed over to the girl's father and used for the upbringing of the minor girl's child.
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, while deeming the committee's actions as 'shocking' and 'surprising', directed that if the committee does not pay the cost, the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar will ensure that the Chairman of the CWC remains present in the Court on the next hearing.
Case title – Brijpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 260
The Allahabad High Court held that the cooperative society's employees and officers are not public servants as per Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted under Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the IPC.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed this while dismissing a petition filed by Brijpal Singh seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, charge sheet, and cognizance order passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in connection with a case u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 3080 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The Allahabad High Court has rejected bail to four persons accused of wrongfully availing input tax credit of about Rs. 315 crores on grounds that an economic offence of such magnitude may affect the economy of the country.
Justice Nalin Kr Srivastava noted that the applicants' office-cum-residence was subjected to a search where several forged rubber stamps, chequebooks, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Mobile Phones, SIM cards along with various electronic gadgets were recovered. On inquiry, it was found that activities on the searched premises were being controlled by persons situated at other premises.
Case Title: Ram Kishan Bairwa vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262 [WRIT TAX No. - 416 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262
The Allahabad High Court has held that mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for filing appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be waived under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Alternatively, petitioner prayed for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act while being relegated to appellate jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title: Jay Prakash And Another v. Anjula Singh Mahaur And Another [ELECTION PETITION No. - 1 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 263
The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition filed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 outside the period of limitation prescribed under Section 81 of the Act is not maintainable.
Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a complete and self-contained code which renders the Limitation Act inapplicable per se.
Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides 45 days period from the date of election of the returned candidate and if the dates for elections are different, then the later date, for filing of election petition.
Case Title: Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak held that the Labour Court has been given ample power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine the correctness of the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer in passing the discharge or dismissal order.
The High Court held that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act denotes the power of the Labour Courts/ Tribunal/ National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman. It held that while examining the matter for granting relief to the workman, Labour Court is entrusted power to examine the legality and validity of the discharge/dismissal order.
Case title – Mithilesh Maurya And Another Vs. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265
The Allahabad High Court held that a habeas Corpus writ would not ordinarily be issued to grant visitation rights, particularly when proceedings between the parties are pending before the Family Court.
“A writ of habeas corpus, as has been consistently held, though a writ of right is not to be issued as a matter of course, particularly when the writ is sought against a parent for the custody of a child,” a bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed as it dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a father seeking visiting rights vis-à-vis his one-month-old child (presently in mother's custody).
Case Title: M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that expression “in the manner directed by such court” in Section 19 of the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 gives the discretion to the court to allow the predeposit to be made, if felt necessary, in installments also.
Case Title: State of UP and 3 others vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267
The Allahabad High Court has held that services rendered by an employee as a daily wager cannot be taken as qualifying service for pension/ calculating pension amount. It has been held that when employee was rendering services as work charge and was later regularized, period served as work charge must be counted for qualifying services for pension.
Case title - Dhananjay Singh and another vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to former MP Dhananjay Singh in connection with a kidnapping and extortion case (of a Namami Gange project manager). The Court, however, refused his plea to suspend or stay his conviction.
Singh and his associate Santosh Vikram Singh were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by an MP/MLA court last month. Challenging their conviction, Singh and his associate moved before the high court.
Case title - Alok Jha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 269
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 269
The Allahabad High Court has observed that bank officials must cooperate fully in criminal investigations of cybercrimes.
“Bank officials are expected to be law-abiding citizens who are under an obligation of law to cooperate in criminal investigations being conducted by the police,” a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed while allowing a second bail plea filed by one Alok Jha, an accused in a case of cybercrime and booked under Section 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471, 411 I.P.C. and Section 66D of IT Act.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India vs Shri Krishna Uchchter Madhyamic Vidhyalaya And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 270
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held that the Arbitration Act is a legislation for speedy redressal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the Appellant makes out a very strong case and explains the reasons for the delay. The High Court held that the Appellant didn't provide specific reasons for the delay or provide any document to explain the delay.
Case Title: Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney vs. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271 [WRIT TAX No. - 11 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere statement of the contractor doing construction work cannot be relied upon to declare such construction as benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Court held that “reasons to believe” in Section 24(1) of the Act must be based on cogent and relevant material.
Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 provides that where based on material in his possession, the Initiating Officer has reason to believe that any person is a benamidar in respect of a property, he may record reasons in writing and issue notice to the person to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why the property should not be treated as benami property.
Case title - Pasru @ Ismail vs. The State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 272
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 272
Citing the unreliability of the victim's testimony, the Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who had been found guilty by the trial court (in 1986) of raping an alleged minor girl in January 1984 and was sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that the trial court had committed patent illegality in accepting the unreliable testimony of the alleged victim/prosecutrix.
Case title - Priti Ravindra Shukla vs. Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 273
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 273
The Allahabad High Court has temporarily restrained two women (25-year-old 'Shinova' and 54-year-old 'Aparna') from publishing any fresh claim that they are the daughter and wife of actor and BJP Member of Parliament Ravi Kishan.
A bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed this order on a plea filed by Kishan's wife who had moved the HC challenging last week's order of a Civil Court in Lucknow declining to issue any direction restraining the alleged mother-daughter duo from publishing any material against Kishan and his family members.
Case title – Nanhaku Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 274
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 274
While acquitting a man convicted by a trial for the murder and rape of an 11-year-old girl, the Allahabad High Court termed it as “unfortunate” that despite there being no evidence against the accused-appellant, he had been forced to remain in jail for over twelve years.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi also noted its inclination to make “harsh” observations against the Investigating Officer and the Presiding Officer. However, the court refrained from doing so since the bench did not hear them.
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar vs. Allahabad Central University Through Its Registrar And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 117 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275
The Allahabad High Court has held that a student who has made a declaration that he has read information available online cannot claim violation of principles of natural justice at the time of admission cancellation based on the rules stated in the brochure which was available online with the form.
Petitioner-appellant was granted provisional admission and allotted a roll number in MA political science in Shyama Prasad Mukharjee State Degree College in non-subject category. Though he had appeared in viva prior to written examinations, he was informed by the Convenor of the College that his admission stood cancelled.
Case Title: Reddy Veerraju Chowdary vs. Insolvency Professional/Resolution Professional, C.A. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 276 [WRIT - A No. - 15614 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 276
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private company under insolvency in a contractual dispute unless it be the breach of some law or a statutory rule.
“The interim Resolution Professional just represents the Company and in no way changes its character or the rights relating to the contact of employment inter se the petitioner and the Company. The dispute between the petitioner and the Company about the petitioner resigning and walking away, without handing over charge, arises out of the contract of employment. The Company being essentially a private body and no face or establishment of the State, a breach of the contract of employment, either by the petitioner or the Company, unless it be the breach of some law or a statutory rule, would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Mr. R. Shankar Raman Whole Time Director And Chief Financial Officer vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 277
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 277
The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal cases filed against the CFO, CEO & MD, and Senior Executive Vice President of Larsen and Toubro Limited.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Vijay Dhanuka and others v. Najima Mamtaj and others, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, the Court held that though the High Court has extraordinary powers to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court must not go into disputed question of fact under Section 482.
Case Title: Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 816 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278
The Allahabad High Court has held that the cancellation of license under Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 cannot be based on suspicion. The Court held that without there being any cogent material or evidence such harsh penalty of cancellation of license must not be invoked.
Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 provides for cancellation of any license granted under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue or under the Opium Act, 1878 of such licensee whose license, permit or pass has been cancelled under clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1),
Case Title: Shree Vindavan Auto Sales v. State of U.P. along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 279 [WRIT - A No. - 69 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 279
The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Mathura, banning the registration of e-rickshaws and e-autos in Mathura and Agra as being passed without jurisdiction.
Essentially, the ARTO Mathura, issued a notification on November 07, 2023, under Rule 178 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, banning registration of e-Rickshaws and e-Autos in Mathura and Agra on account of their mushroom growth causing incessant traffic jams.