NOMINAL INDEX Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66 M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67 M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB)...
NOMINAL INDEX
Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66
M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67
M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72
M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73
M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77
M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90
M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95
M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Tufel Ahamd vs. Abu Rafat And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102
C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106
M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart And Another v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108
ABC vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Dinesh Paswan vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111
M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112
M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113
M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114
M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Deepak Sharma v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117
M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118
M/S Neeraj Potato Presarvation And Food Products Pvt.Ltd. v. U.P. Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Faciliation Council And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Jatan Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120
Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Pinki And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Syed Hamidul Bari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124
M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125
M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case title - Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66 [WRIT - C No. - 1348 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court has held that no sanctity could be attached to an interfaith/inter-religious marriage which has been performed without the compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021.
The Court court clarified that in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 came into force [after November 27, 2020] the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed thus:
"...if conversion is done in relation to marriage of the persons belonging to different religions, irrespective of any past event, which might or might not attach sanctity to conversion, in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 has come into force, i.e., after 27.11.2020 as per Section 1 (3) of the Act, the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act..."
Case Title: M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67 [WRIT - C No. - 3774 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award passed in a reference made under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 must be challenged as per provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that any application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council under the MSED Act shall not be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not the supplier) deposits 75% of the decretal amount.
Case Title: M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68 [ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 42 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very narrow. The Court held that debatable questions of fact cannot be gone into by the Court while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator.
“The rival contentions regarding arbitrability, in my view, cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. Its adjudication requires appreciation of evidence. The scope of judicial review in deciding issue of arbitrability is very limited,” held Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69 [WRIT - C No. - 1614 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has upheld the cancellation of firearms license on grounds that categorically factual findings were recorded by the authority regarding the conduct of the petitioner being detrimental to public peace and safety.
The Court observed that Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the licensing authority to vary the conditions of the firearm license granted. The licensing authority also has the power to suspend or revoke firearm license if, inter alia, licensing authority is satisfied that the suspension or revocation is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 414 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Allahabad High Court has held that the same Magistrate cannot be the witness and the judge in the case initiated by him against the SHO (Inspector In-Charger) under Section 29 of the UP Police Act.
Section 29 of the UP Police Act provides penalties for neglect of duties by a police officer mentioned therein including wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or a lawful order made by competent authority. Penalties for such erring police officer are upto three months' pay, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both.
Case Title: Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12988 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of anapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint) on grounds that notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is not mandatory if it will defeat the purpose of the injunction suit.
Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 provides for suits against municipality or its officers, it is mandatory to provide a two month notice period to the municipality and its officers. The notice must contain the cause of action, nature of relief sought, amount of compensation claimed, and name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left at the address of the municipality or its officers whoever is sought to be impleaded.
Case title - Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41458 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court has observed that appropriate action should be taken against victims who initially lodge an FIR under Section 376 IPC (Rape), POCSO Act & SC-ST Act but turn hostile by retracting their statements during the trial after receiving compensation from the Government.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav further emphasized that such cases result in a waste of the investigator's and the court's time and resources.
Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73 [Writ Tax No. 1544 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court has held that before taking any adverse decision under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assesee even if there is no request on his part.
Relying on various decisions of the Allahabad High Court regarding mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“Even if no request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”
Case Title: M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74 [Writ Tax No. 141 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty which was imposed due to production of expired e-way bill at the time of detention. The Court held that no intention to evade tax was established by the authorities. Since, there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the Court held that penalty could not be imposed for a technical error in absence of any intention to evade tax.
Case Title: Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75 [WRIT TAX No. - 1482 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the new law, it is not necessary for the assessing authority to record “reasons to believe”. The Court held that the assessing authorities are only required to record bonafide satisfaction regarding escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held,
“under the amended law, it is no longer, the obligation of the Assessing Authority to record a "reason to believe", before assuming jurisdiction to reassess an assessee. A bonafide satisfaction reached as to escapement of income made suffice the test of valid assumption of jurisdiction.”
Case title - Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17109 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is the 'dark face' of the society where parents, disapproving of their children's love marriages, resort to filing FIRs against the boy under familial and societal pressure, showcasing a troubling trend.
“The court after hearing the parties, records its deepest anguish, whereby this social menace is deep rooted that even after 75 years of independence we are fighting the cases with his opponents on this score only,” the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar remarked.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 87 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High has held that where assessee has paid far more tax than the input tax credit claimed, Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 will not apply.
Section 13(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides conditions in which input tax credit can be claimed by an assesee holding a valid registration. Section 13(1)(f) of the Act provides that
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this sub-section where goods purchased are resold or goods manufactured or processed by using or utilizing such where goods are sold, at the price which is lower than (i) purchase price of such goods in case of resale; or (ii) cost price in case of manufacture, the amount of input tax credit shall be claimed and be allowed to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods or manufactured goods.”
Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1417 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78
The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. It only has the power to confirm or modify or annul the order under appeal.
Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the remedy of appeal to an assesee aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the CGST Act. Sub-section 11 of Section 107 empowers the appellate authority to pass orders either confirming, modifying or annulling the order under challenge. However, sub-section 11 specifically prohibits the appellate authority from sending the case back to the authority whose order is under challenge.
Person Summoned U/S 319 CrPC Can't Avail Remedy Of Discharge U/S 227 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person added as accused after being summoned under Section 319 CrPC cannot seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
Referring to top Court's judgement in the case of Jogendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2015), a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan opined thus:
“…an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC is entitled to invoke the remedy under the law against an illegal and improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, however, the same cannot have the effect of the order being undone by seeking a discharge under Section 227 CrPC”
Case Title: Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [WRIT - A No. - 18971 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a petition must be carefully drafted, disclosing all relevant facts for grant of relief sought by the petitioner.
While dealing with a bunch of cases relating to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that
“In order to make out a case to grant the relief sought, a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully. Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e., petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.”
Case Title: Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18652 of 2016]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not prescribe who can file a complaint on behalf of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.
The Court held that when company is the payee, the complaint must be registered in the name of the company.
“Section 142 of the N.I.Act does not specify as to who should represent the company, if the company is the complainant. A company can be represented by an employee or even by a known employee, who is duly authorized and empowered to represent the company either by resolution or by a power of attorney,” held Justice Prashant Kumar.
Case title - Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6549 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that samples not drawn from the bulk in the presence of a Magistrate as per the mandate of Section 52A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) can't be treated as a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial.
For context, Section 52A (2), (3) and (4) of the provide that when seized contraband is forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, the officer must draw samples from the seized goods in the presence of a magistrate who shall certify its correctness. It is further provided that the inventory or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of samples in connection thereof on being certified by the Magistrate shall be recognized as primary evidence in connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act.
Case title - Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45953 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a demand notice sent to the drawer of a cheque through 'email or WhatsApp' under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument for the dishonour of a cheque, is a valid notice and the same shall be deemed to be dispatched and served on the same date, if it fulfils the requirement of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act.
For context, Section 13 of the IT Act provides that as soon as the notice in electronic form is entered, a computer resource outside the control of the originator, it is deemed to be dispatched and as soon as the notice in electronic form is entered, the designated computer resource or enters the computer resources of the addressee, and then it is deemed to be served.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court permitted a woman having four biological children to adopt a child, despite a legal bar under Adoption Regulations 2022, notified by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 68(c) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Rule 5 of the Adoption Regulations provides that couples with two or more children shall only be considered for adoption of special needs children and hard to place children, unless they are relatives or step-children.
In this regard, while giving the custody of X to the petitioner, her foster parent, the bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla observed,
“While the law could not prevent the petitioner from giving birth to another child, it has been relied to deprive the petitioner from bringing up another child as her own. To take away X from the petitioner is the easiest part in law but it is not possible for law to find another set of parents X may identify as its own. Therefore, law must yield to justice that otherwise commends that the child X must remain in the care of those it perceives to be its parents, especially the petitioner in whom it has found its mother.”
Case title - Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 1989]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court altered the conviction of a man for the offence of 'murder' under Section 302 IPC to one of 'voluntary causing grievous hurt' under Section 325 IPC as it noted that though the accused had caused an injury to the victim by throwing a piece of brick at him, the said injury cannot be categorised as an injury likely to cause death.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that for deducing the requisite intention or knowledge of the accused, it has to be seen whether he was aware of the consequences which shall follow or likely to follow as a direct consequence of his act.
“Where such an awareness of the direct consequences or the higher degree of probability cannot be attributed to the accused, the offence may not fall either under section 302 IPC or section 304 IPC, In our firm opinion, in such cases the offence may be covered under section 323, 324 and 325 IPC as the case may be,” the Court remarked.
Case title - Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18245 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The Allahabad High Court observed that mere use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).
The court added that for an act to come under the purview of this offence, it has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult was such that is likely to insult a person or to commit a breach of the peace or commit an offence
Case Title: Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 35362 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court has held that rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.
The Court held that question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact requires evidence to be led by contesting parties. The issue of limitation as such cannot be decided at the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC unless the pleading in the plaint show the plaint to be barred by limitation, it said.
Case Title: Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 19344 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted on a higher post than the post which was held by the deceased employee, despite the applicant having higher educational qualifications.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suneel Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others and the observations given by the Apex Court while reversing the decision of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Premlata vs. State of U.P. and others, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held,
“Apex Court had twice interpreted the Rule 5 Rules 1974 as well as suitable employment as referred herein. Apex Court has clearly held that "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be construed with the post held by the deceased employee and not by the higher qualification held by the dependent. View of the Apex Court is that compassionate appointment shall not be given upon a higher post than the post held by the deceased employee. Therefore, as on date, law of land is that legal heir cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground to a post higher than the post held by the deceased employee.”
Case Title: Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16068 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court has held that the statutory condition for not granting compassionate appointment if the spouse of the deceased employee is already in government employment is only limited to the spouse and cannot be extended to children of the deceased employee.
The Court held that the son being in government employment at the time of the death of his father would be irrelevant since his earning may be utilized for providing for his own family, wife and children.
Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Challenged U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12798 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90
The Allahabad High Court observed that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge the order.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while relying upon a full bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others wherein it was held that an aggrieved person, having a remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91 [ SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 206 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of res-judicata does not apply from one assessment year to another. However, the Court held that the Department cannot be allowed to change its stance for the same assesee for different assessment years, unless there is a marked change from one year to another.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“One may of course keep in mind that in taxation matters, the principles of res-judicata do not apply squarely for one assessment year to the other. However, keeping in mind the doctrine of finality, unless there is a marked change from one assessment year to the other, the department cannot be allowed to take a different stand.“
Case Title: Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92 [WRIT - C No. - 6606 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The Allahabad High Court has held that fees deposited by a student at the time of counselling is quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student by the institution.
While directing the respondent college to refund the fee deposited by the student at the time of first counselling, who is now seeking admission elsewhere, Justice Manish Mathur observed that
“In case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment. It is the opinion of this Court, that fees deposited by a student is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student. This is more so, as in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop up rounds of counselling have taken place.”
Case Title: Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15229 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93
While dealing with a challenge against the cancellation of appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Education Department based on the re-evaluation of answer booklets, the Allahabad High Court has held that less meritorious candidates cannot be allowed to continue on the posts at the cost of meritorious candidates.
The Court held that in the absence of a challenge to the process of re-evaluation, merely citing the lack of statutory provisions, cannot be a reason to disregard the process and accommodate less meritorious candidates who were selected based on fraudulent tabulation of marks.
“Fairness is the soul of any competitive examination. Any compromise of merit would betray confidence and trust of meritorious candidates on examination system and in case some irregularity is detected during process of examination and there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of justice and to maintain fairness, an endeavour has to be taken to cure it,” held Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery.
Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.- 36 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court has held the revision jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural. The Court held that the High Court must refrain from going into questions of facts which have been decided by the Tribunal.
Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides that any person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 57(7) or Section 57(8) of the UPVAT Act can file a revision before the High Court on grounds that the case involves questions of law. The limitation for filing such revision is ninety days from the service of such orders.
“In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has a limited mandate. The scope of revisional jurisdictional, is primarily focused on questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities. The High Court in a revision petition must refrain from engaging in a de novo inquiry into factual matters already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, unless compelling grounds warranting such intervention are made,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95 [WRIT TAX No. - 144 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Allahabad High Court has held that not filing a reply to a show cause notice does not take away the opportunity for personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act provides that an opportunity for a hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated against such person.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held that there is a dual requirement engrained in the principles of natural justice.
“First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.”
Case Title: M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96 [WRIT TAX No. - 739 of 2020]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96
While quashing penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Hawkins Cookers Limited, the Allahabad High Court cited the Arthashastra by Chanakya.
“Governments should collect taxes like a honeybee collects honey from a flower without disturbing its petals.”
The Court held that in absence of any other discrepancy, incorrect address entered in four out of eight e-way bills is of the principal place of business of the petitioner, the same does not give rise to the presumption of intention to evade tax. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner.”
Case Title: Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97 [Writ Tax No. 83 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of self-certified copy of order is not applicable to the appeals filed electronically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any order passed under the Act. Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides that the appeal under Section 107 must be filed in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents, either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The Allahabad High Court has observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minors or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.
Justice Rahul Chaturvedi's bench further noted that in cases where couples being adults, enter into marriage, the action of their parents of filing FIRs against the husband-boy, is like poisoning their marital relationship.
The Single Judge also observed that the Court have to sometimes grapple with justifying State/Police action against a teenage couple who marry, lead peaceful lives, and raise families, while also upholding respect for the law.
"This Court has time and again reached to the conclusion that true love between the individuals, one or both of who may be a minor or at the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action," the Court remarked.
"When the scale of justice has to be weighed, they are not on the basis of mathematical precision or the mathematical formulas or theorems, but at times, while on one side of the scale there is the law and other side of scale may carry the entire life, happiness and the future of toddlers, their parents and the parents of their parents. The scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality would definitely equal the scale carrying the law as the application of law is meant for maintaining the rule of law and an orderly society," it added.
Case title - Tufel Ahamd vs. Abu Rafat And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99 [SECOND APPEAL No. - 928 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Expressing displeasure with the Stamp Reporter section of the HC for erroneously listing an application against an order concerning temporary injunction in a pending suit as a 'Second Appeal', the Allahabad High Court observed recently newer generation staff in the Stamp Reporter section lacks sufficient knowledge of the law.
“…the newer generation of staff recruited in the Stamp Reporter have scant awareness about the law, though they may have plenty of knowhow in working with the computers, on which they enter data,” a bench of Justice JJ Munir observed.
Case title - Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8877 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the campus of the police line is a sensitive place where the Armory, District Wireless Control Room Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, and therefore, the public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh made this observation while refusing to quash a criminal case against a leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) who has been booked inter alia under Section 153B of IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932 for allegedly trying to enter in a Mosque located inside the Police Lines premises in Pratapgarh to offer namaz.
Case Title: Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a "court," falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC.
Moreover, once the award attains finality, any objections must be raised exclusively in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title - Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1343 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to former Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board chairman Wasim Rizvi (now Jitendra Tyagi) in an FIR lodged against him for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the adorable personalities of the Sunni Sect of the Muslim community in his film Ram Ki Janmabhoomi.
In the FIR, Tyagi, who wrote, produced and acted in the film, was booked under section 153-A and 504 IPC in the year 2019 on the allegations that the screening of the film may lead to communal tension in the city.
Case Title: C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 791 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suspended principal of a college cannot take part in any selection or recruitment process. The Court held that in absence of any challenge to the appointment of Officiating Principal, the appointments made in his presence in the selection committee cannot deemed to be invalid.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“A suspended Principal cannot take part in the recruitment proceedings, nor can he be expected to form part of the selection committee.”
Case title - Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20280 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday explained what constitutes a 'prima facie case' or 'prima facie satisfaction' and when it can be said to have been made out before a Magistrate proceeds to summon/issue process against an accused under section 204 CrPC.
A bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that before issuing a process against an accused, the Magistrate has to hold an inquiry as envisaged under section 202 CrPC, to look for 'sufficient ground to proceed' (as per Section 204 CrPC) against the accused, which is nothing but a 'prima facie satisfaction' of the Magistrate.
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 321 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchased by husband in the name of wife who is a homemaker and has no independent source of income is a family property. The Court held that it is common and natural in Hindu husbands to purchase properties in the name of their wives.
While dealing with son's claim for declaration of co-ownership of deceased father's property, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,
“This Court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is homemaker and does not have independent source of income, will be the property of family, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.”
Case title - Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Observing that advocates are not appearing in the majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates, the Allahabad High Court said that the non-appearance of a counsel for his client amounts to professional misconduct and also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in the year 2019 as infructuous as it noted that both the applicant and his counsel were absent during the court hearings.
Compliance Of Section 21 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Is Mandatory: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court has held that the compliance of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) is mandatory. Thus, arbitral proceedings would only commence once the notice invoking arbitration issued by the claimant is received by the respondent.
The Bench comprising Justice Manju Rani Chauhan was adjudicating a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by borrowers, challenging the arbitration proceedings initiated against them by Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. without serving a Notice Invoking Arbitration. The Bench has quashed the arbitration proceedings for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 of Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart And Another v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 657 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of detention prescribed in the confirmatory order passed by the State Government under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be reviewed or extended by reviewing such order.
The Court held that for detaining the person any further, a fresh detention order needs to be passed under Section 3(2) of the Act and such order has to be confirmed as per procedure prescribed under Sections 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act.
Case title - ABC vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109 [name of the applicant hidden]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that If a person ('customer') comes to a brothel and pays money for the satisfaction of his lust, then, at the most, it can be said that he procures a woman to satisfy his lust and not for commercial purposes and hence, it can't be said that he procured or induced the woman for prostitution.
Case Title: Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110 [WRIT - A No. - 9908 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The Allahabad High Court has held that no action under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation can be taken for an incident which took place four years prior to the retirement of the employee.
Regulation 351–A of CSR empowers the Governor to reserve to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.
Case title - Dinesh Paswan vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111 [CAPITAL CASE No. - 4 of 2022 With Reference No.4 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man, who had brutally raped and killed a three-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh in October 2021, to a fixed-term sentence of 30 years without any benefit of remission.
Considering the age of the accused (25 years at the time of the incident) along with his marital status, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi found it appropriate to commute his death sentence.
Case Title: M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112 [WRIT TAX No. - 975 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeals filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that Tax laws are complete comprehensive codes which have strict procedural requirements to ensure revenue certainty and fiscal stability.
Section 107 of the UPGST Act provides a period of three months from the date of order to file an appeal challenging the same. Section 107(4) empowers the appellate authority to exercise discretion in condoning delay of up to one month in filing the appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a general provision which enables Courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.
Case Title: M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113 [WRIT TAX No. - 1314 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of no discrepancies or clerical errors in the documentation, the initial burden to prove that there is intention to evade tax lies on the department.
While quashing penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service tax Act, 2017, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“It is a fact that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases to show that there was no evasion of tax. However, when the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax.”
Case Title: M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114 [WRIT TAX No. - 1109 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court has held that absence of tax invoices and/or e-way bill at the time of interception and their subsequent production does not absolve the assesee from the liability of penalty under the Goods and Service Tax Act.
“Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.
The bench of Justice Abdul Moin has observed that, as per Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, a judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision, and the reason for the decision, which were not compiled by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while passing the judgement.
Case Title: Deepak Sharma v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116 [WRIT - C No. - 2208 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court has held that taking possession of property pursuant to proceedings under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers an appropriate Government to acquire land in case of urgency for public purpose. While acquiring land under Section 17, the land vests in the Government after 15 days from the date of notification without any encumbrances. Passing of an award under the Act is not necessary.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court called the Uttar Pradesh Government's action of stopping worship rituals inside Vyas Tehkhana (located at the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) in 1993 as ILLEGAL. The Court said that the worship rituals were stopped by "illegal action of State without there being any order in writing".
"The act of the State Government since the year 1993 restraining the Vyas family from performing religious worship and rituals and also by the devotees was a continuous wrong being perpetuated": a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal observed in his 54-page order which was released soon after the bench pronounced its verdict of dismissing Gyanvapi Mosque committee's appeal challenging the Varanasi Court's January 31 order allowing 'Puja' In 'Vyas Tehkhana' (southern cellar of Gyanvapi Mosque).
Case Title: M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118
The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has quashed the order by the GST and Central Excise Superintendent for lack of jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur has observed that according to the circular dated February 9, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue, the power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, and Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, and in the present case, the amount involved is more than Rs. 16,00,000, and consequently, the order passed by it is without jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S Neeraj Potato Presarvation And Food Products Pvt.Ltd. v. U.P. Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Faciliation Council And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119 [WRIT - C No. - 35190 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
The Allahabad High Court has held that without registration for financial services under Section 22 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 along with Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the alleged loan advanced by the petitioner was a private contract not amenable to recovery under the aforesaid laws.
The bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“For the purposes of MSMED Act and to provide financial services under Section 22 of the Act, 1976 the petitioner ought to have the registration under the MSMED Act, 2006 for 'financial activity', which admittedly could not be explained by the petitioner. The petitioner having not been registered under the MSMED Act for financial activity and there being a private agreement between the petitioner and the contesting respondents, the petitioner could not have sought a recovery for an alleged loan purportedly granted under Section 22 of the Act, 1976 by taking aid of the provisions contained under MSMED Act.”
Case title - Jatan Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2965 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a cheque is returned unpaid by a Bank with an endorsement 'Account Closed', it would amount to 'dishonour of cheque' and constitute the commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta further added that the return of the cheque by the drawee Bank alone constitutes the commission of offence under section 138 of the NI Act.
To conclude thus, the single judge relied upon Apex Court's judgments in the cases of NEPC Micon Ltd. vs. Magma Leasing Ltd (1999), wherein it was observed that when the cheque is returned by a bank with an endorsement account closed, it would amount to returning the cheque unpaid, because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account, is insufficient to honour the cheque as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 52 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court has held that no appeal lies under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against an order rejecting amendment application in petition filed under Section 278 of the Act of 1925.
The Court held that since Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC does not provide a remedy of appeal against orders passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rejecting amendment application, the same needed to be challenged either by filing revision under Section 115 CPC or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Case title - Pinki And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122 [WRIT - C No. - 1579 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner while observing that such type of 'illegal relationship' need not be protected by the court.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal also imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the live-in couple (petitioners) as it observed that if it would indulge in “such type of cases” and grant protection to “illegal relationship”, then it will create 'chaos' in the society.
Case Title: Syed Hamidul Bari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123 [WRIT - C No. - 11383 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that by common sense, businessman having possession of large portions of land by illegally taking the same from the slum dwellers without required sanctions cannot be termed as slum dweller.
“Presuming in a slum, a businessman finding good business opportunity, takes possession of a large piece of land from the actual slum dwellers and illegally, without required sanctions, constructs a multiplex or a big hotel or a big shopping complex or raises any other such big business constructions. Can he, merely because he did these activities within a slum, claim to be a slum dweller entitled to the protection given to dingy houses of slum dwellers, despite all aspects of the matter reflecting his disparity with actual slum dwellers? The answer 'NO' comes to us too loudly.”
Case Title: Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 163 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for filing private interest litigation in the grab of public interest litigation.
The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted in such cases including the present one.”
Case Title: M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1632 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that search and seizure of a godown of an assesee cannot be penalised in proceedings under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Section 129 of the Act provides procedure for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances which have been intercepted in transit and are found to be in contravention of the statute.
Case Title: M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another [Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.2 Of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court has referred the question whether application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for time extension can only be heard by the Supreme Court or the High Court where the appointment of such arbitrator has been made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be.
Further, the Court has raised a query regarding the powers of the 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act to adjudicate on an application under Section 29A of the Act.