All High Courts Weekly Roundup: 10 January- 15 January, 2022

Allahabad High Court1. S. 482 CrPC Plea Maintainable To Quash Proceedings Which Are Ex Facie Bad For Want Of Sanction: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Mahendra Pal Singh Lekhpal And Another v. State of U.P. and AnotherCase Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 9The High Court observed that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable to quash the proceedings, which are ex facie bad for want of sanction as required under Section 197 of Crpc (Prosecution of Judges and public servants).With this, the Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai set aside a summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Farrukhabad against a Lekhpal (applicant number 1) and a Kanoongo (applicant number 2) in the Consolidation department (both public servants) without obtaining necessary sanction as provided under Section 197 of CrPC.2. GST- State Authorities Cannot Act On Whims And Fancies To Harass Trading Community: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: S/S Shri Surya Traders v. Union Of India And 4 OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 10In a case pertaining to wrongful seizure of a consignment by State authorities citing non-compliance with the provisions of UP GST Act, a single judge bench of Allahabad High Court has observed that "State government has tried to create an atmosphere for free flow of trade and commerce so that a good business environment can be developed in the State of Uttar Pradesh which can be used for development purpose but the State Authorities in their whims and fancies, are bent upon to harass the trading community of the state and the present case is a glaring example of this mischievousness of the State Authorities which needs to be checked at the end of the State government immediately."3. People Depositing Money In Banks Are 'Honest'; Banks Have To Take Responsibility For Cyber Crimes: Allahabad HCCase title - Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected matters Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11While denying bail to 4 persons accused of fraudulently withdrawing money from the bank account of a retired High Court Judge, the High Court observed that those who deposit money in banks are honest and it is the responsibility of the banks to keep their money safe 'at any cost'. The Bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav also observed that those people who do not deposit crores of rupees in the bank and rather hide the same in the basements of their houses, are responsible for hollowing out the economic prosperity of the country.It opined that the bank has to take responsibility for such cases wherein the money of their customers is withdrawn by cybercriminals as such customers are more honest towards the country since they put their white money in banks.4. Aadhaar-Bank Mandatory Linking: Allahabad HC 'Agrees' With Centre's Argument To Seek Review Of Supreme Court's 2018 VerdictCase title - Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected mattersCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11While denying bail to 4 persons accused of fraudulently withdrawing money from the bank account of a retired High Court Judge, the High Court expressed its agreement with a submission made by the Union Government regarding the filing of a review petition against the Supreme Court's 2018 Adhaar Verdict before the SC.In its 2018 Verdict, the Supreme Court had ruled that the move of mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank account does not satisfy the test of proportionality.Essentially, the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav was hearing the submissions of RBI, State Government, BSNL, and Union government regarding the measures that could be taken to tackle cyber frauds/cyber crimes/fraudulent withdrawal of money from banks.5. [GPF Rules] Rule Framed Under Article 309 Can't Be Replaced By Executive Order Issued Under Article 162: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Finance Deptt. Lko & Ors. Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 12The High Court has observed that any rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can only be replaced by an Act of an appropriate legislature and the same cannot be replaced by an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed thus as it set aside a government's order of 1986 withdrawing the benefit of bonus required to be paid under Rule 12 of the General Provident Fund (U.P.), Rules, 1985.6. Motor Accident Claim- Fixing 15K As Notional Income Per Annum For Non-Earning Member Is Unreasonable: Allahabad HCCase title - Roop Lal and Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and 2 Ors.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 13Referring to a Supreme Court's Judgment delivered in 2021, the High Court observed that fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for a family's non-earning members is not just and reasonable.The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by the...

All High Courts Weekly Roundup: 10 January- 15 January, 2022

Shrutika Pandey

Tags