Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: November 2022 [Citations 478 - 510]

NOMINAL INDEX Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478 Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479 State Of U.P. v. M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480 In re v. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 481 Vijay Kumar Singhv. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 482 Arti Devi v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 483 Haseen Alias Ishu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 484 Mohd. Sajid v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 485 Anil Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 486 Haji Mahboob Ahmad And Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 487 Aftaf @ Nafees @ Pappu v. State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 488 Sagar v. State Of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 489 Raheem v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 490 Om Prakash v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 491 Dr. M Ismail Faruqui v. Shri Adityanath 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 492 Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493 Kailash Jaiswal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 494 Anurag Singh Bhadouriya (in FIR Anurag Bhadouriya) v. State Of UP. Thru Addl. Chief Secy/Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett Lko and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 495 Sameer Khan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 496 Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 497 X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498 Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499 Gazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 500 Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 501 Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 502 Anil Kumar v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Jal Shakti Deptt. Drinking Water And Sanitation New Delhi And ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 503 Sukh Vir Singh And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrancer And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 504 Manisha Kanaujia And Another v. District Magistrate And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 505 Vidya Devi And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 506 Dr. Archana Gupta v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 507 Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 508 Raj Kumar v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 509 Shipra Hotels Limited And Anther v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 510 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH (OCTOBER 2022) Allahabad High Court Rejects Prayer Of Murder Accused To Conduct Their Own, Complainant's NARCO Analysis Test Case title - Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7559 of 2022] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478 The Allahabad High Court rejected the prayer of certain murder accused who sought a brain mapping test/NARCO/lie detector test upon themselves as well as the complainant so as to contract out the truth of the case. The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori however, clarified that if the Investigating Officer, on his own, decides to get the said tests conducted, then he can get the test conducted subject to the consent of the accused. [Compassionate Appointment] Can't Presume A Person To Be Financially Stable Merely Because He Got Married: Allahabad HC Case title - Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17078 of 2015] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479 The Allahabad High Court observed that the marriage of an individual is no ground to deny him/her a compassionate appointment as entering into a marital relationship doesn't raise a presumption that a person is financially stable. With this, the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan set aside an order of the DIG (Establishment) Police Head Quarter, U.P denying compassionate appointment to the younger son of a UP Police constable who died during his service tenure. Demand Of Tax and penalty can't be imposed on the basis of conjecture : Allahabad High Court Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480 The Allahabad High Court has held that the demand for tax and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of conjecture and surmise, especially in cases where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and E-way bill. The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has observed, "As the respondent has not approached for availing of the benefits that flow from Section 129, coupled with the fact that the appellate authority found that the basis for initiating proceedings was non-existent, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in the exercise of powers under...

Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: November 2022 [Citations 478 - 510]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags