All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: May 30 - June 5, 2022

Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268 Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269 Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270 Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271 Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272 Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273 Ramshankar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274 Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275 Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276 Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277 M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK High-Pitched, Unreasonable Reassessment Orders, Allahabad High Court Directs The Authorities To Take Action Case Title: Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268 The High Court directed the centre and the tax department to take action against officials for issuing high-pitched and unreasonable reassessment orders. The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has observed that the centre should ensure to establish a monitoring cell at the level of government or CBDT within a month if it has not been established so far. The cell will ensure regular monitoring of the Local Committees, as well as follow-up actions and reviews by the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and Zonal Members, as well as an analysis of the quarterly reports. Section 47 CPC Application Is Not Maintainable In Execution Proceedings Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators, Civil Revision No. 53 of 2022 Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269 The High Court held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal held that an arbitration award is not a decree as defined under section 2(2) of CPC and therefore, the objection under section 47 of CPC, which can be filed only in execution of decree (as defined under section 2(2) CPC), is not maintainable in the proceedings seeking execution of the award. Rules Of Limitation Not Meant To Destroy Parties' Rights; It Ensures That Parties Don't Sleep Over Their Rights: Allahabad High Court Case title - Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 273 of 2016] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270 "The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly," the High Court stressed. The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus as it dismissed a revision plea filed by one Laxman Prashad as barred by limitation. The revisionist had filed the plea with a delay of 756 days. Why So Many AAGs & Chief Standing Counsels Appointed To Defend State?: Allahabad HC Directs Placing Of Matter Before UP Cabinet Case title - Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271 In a significant order, the High Court asked the UP Govt as to what is the requirement to appoint so many Additional Advocate Generals and Chief Standing Counsels at Allahabad High Court (both Benches) to defend the State when already more than 400 State lawyers are impaneled by it. The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also took expectation to the practice of outsourcing the lawyers on behalf of the State and its various authorities and corporations wherein a big amount of taxpayers' money is being used. Essentially, the Court was dealing with a contempt petition in a land acquisition matter. When the court reserved its Judgment, the Additional Advocate General M. C. Chaturvedi made a request that his appearance be recorded not only for the State of U.P. but also for the Ghaziabad Development Authority. "People Of Rural Areas Have Much Better Eye-Sight Than That Of Town Folks": Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence Of 3 Murder Convicts Case title - Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272 The High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence awarded to three murder convicts for...

All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: May 30 - June 5, 2022

Shrutika Pandey

Tags