Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest : October To December 2024

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER [OCTOBER 2024-DECEMBER 2024]Civil Judge Has No Jurisdiction To Entertain Suit Filed U/S 92 CPC Or Under Section 2 Of Religious Endowment Act, 1863: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Jyantri Prasad And 9 Others v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir,Pratapgarh Thru. Ram Shiromani Pandey And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4294 of 2024] Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 609 The Allahabad High Court has held that a Civil Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92, C.P.C. or under the Religious Endowment Act, 1863. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that, “a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is the Court of the District Judge, and not in any other Court. The District Judge can decide the Suit himself or he may transfer it to an Additional District Judge.” After Completing 15 Yrs Service, Employee Can't Be Held Liable For Procedural Lapses In Appointment On Part Of Nagar Nigam: Allahabad HC Case Title: Smt. Poonam Shukla & Others v. State of U.P. & Others [WRIT - A No. - 32670 of 2007] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 610 The Allahabad High Court has held that the part-time teachers who possess requisite qualifications cannot be denied benefit of the services after 15-16 years of service because of procedural lapses on part of the Nagar Nigam in following in appointment of such-teachers. “Once the candidates had requisite qualification and were selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, whether advertisement was made in one newspaper or not, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the default, if any, committed by the officials of the Nigam,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. [S. 3(3) Of Interest Act, 1978] Interest Is Payable Only On Principal Sum Not On Interest Awarded By Court: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad And Another v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 27185 of 2022] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 611 The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 interest cannot be imposed on interest award, it is only payable on the principal sum. Application U/S. 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act Not To Be Dismissed For Non-filing Of Certified Copy Of Arbitral Award If Explanation Provided: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Ram Babu Vishkarma v. M/S Shriram Finance Ltd and Anr. Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 612 The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that if a certified/signed copy of the award cannot be obtained and filed with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, filing a copy of the award along with an explanation would be an appropriate exercise. Medical Board's Opinion On Age Only An Estimation, Not Accurate: Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Class 6 Girl Denied Admission For Being 'Overage' Case Title: Km Sakshi v. Govt Of India And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 445 of 2024] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 613 The Allahabad High Court set aside an order which had upheld a school's decision to deny admission to a female student in class 6 based on a report which allegedly indicated that she was about 15 years. Noting the authenticity of the student's birth certificate which was questioned by the school to deny admission, the court said that subjecting the student to medical examination was "wholly unjustified and high-handed". RP Act 1951 | High Court Has No Power To Extend Limitation Period Or Condone Delay In Filing Of Election Petition: Allahabad HC Case title - Prahlad Singh vs. Yogesh Chaudhary [- ELECTION PETITION No. - 11 of 2024] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 614 The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it does not possess the power to extend the limitation period or condone delays in filing election petitions. A bench of Justice Samit Gopal also said that the 1951 Act is a code in itself and thus, the Limitation Act, 1963 provisions do not apply to election petitions, and the filing/presentation of the election petition is strictly governed by Section 81 of the Act, 1951. Stamp Duty Inapplicable On Family Members Who Ceased To Be Co-Sharers In Property Prior To Executing Partition Memo: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Somansh Prakash And 8 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 5229 of 2021] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 615 The Allahabad High Court has recently observed held that if family members looking to partition their property/land, cease to be...

Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest : October To December 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags