Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part II]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (All) 391 – 2024 LiveLaw (All) 787Lawyers To Ensure Dignity Of Court Even When Challenging Its Order: Allahabad High Court Deprecates Disrespectful Drafting Of Review ApplicationCase Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391 [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 69 of 2024]Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of disrespectful drafting of review applications which lower the dignity of the Court.While hearing a review application against his earlier order, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,“Although a litigant is well within its right to challenge the validity of any order in accordance with the law and in case the order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record, the litigant would be well within its right to say so, but while assailing the orders passed by the Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are expected to act with some sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while contending that the order passed by the Court suffers from a patent error.”Restrictions On Grant Of Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Do Not Apply To Constitutional Courts: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Vimal Rajput vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392The Allahabad High Court has observed that the restrictions on the grant of bail contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) only apply to the special courts dealing with NDPS cases and do not apply to the Constitutional Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court).“I am of the considered view that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi concluded.UP Recognised Basic School Rules: Allahabad HC Upholds Deemed Approval Of Docs Submitted By Appointee If No Response From Authority Within 30 DaysCase Title: Smt. Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393 [WRIT - A No. - 16849 of 2019]Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393The Allahabad High Court, while examining the case of appointment of a principal, has held that if documents sent for approval to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) are not approved within a period of 30 days, then as per Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules, 1978, they shall be held to have been approved.“It has not been disputed that the documents were sent for approval and after a lapse of 30 days, if no communication has been received, then as per the Rule 10(5)(iii) of Rules, 1978, it will be deemed that the approval has been granted,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.'Sexual Offences' Under IPC Are Women-Centric To Protect Dignity & Honour But Male Partner Not Always At Fault: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, emphasizing that while laws on sexual offences are rightly women-centric, it does not mean that the male partner is always at fault.A Division Bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla noted that the burden of proof in such cases lies with both the complainant and the accused.The bench stated, “No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them. It is unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keep on permitting him on so called false pretext of marriage.”1982 Murder Case | 'Faulty' Investigation, 'Contradictions' In Testimonies Of PWs: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 AccusedCase title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the 3 accused in a 1982 murder case, noting that the faulty investigation in the matter had cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offence Sans Magistrate's Permission Is Illegal; Subsequent Nod Is Immaterial: Allahabad HCCase title - Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another...

Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2024 [Part II]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags