High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court No Religion Prescribes Use Of Loudspeakers For Worshipping: Allahabad HC Declines Mosques' Request To Install Loudspeaker For Azaan [Masroor Ahmad & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] Stating that no religion prescribes the use of loudspeakers for worshipping, the Allahabad High Court declined the permission sought by two mosques to install loudspeakers, for the purposes of Azaan. "No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums and if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of the others including that of not being disturbed," division bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held. ● Sec. 164(2) Of Companies Act Valid; But FY Before 2014-15 Not Relevant For Its Application [Jai Shankar Agrahari v. Union of India & Anr.] In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, which stipulates that a Director whose company has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years, shall be disqualified from holding the position for five years. The Court has also held that the "financial year" for the purpose of the Section will start only from 2014-15. The division bench of Justices Sudhir Agarwal and Rajeev Misra said that the provision rightly differentiated between tainted and untainted Directors on the basis of an intelligible classification and thus, was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ● Withholding Gratuity Amount Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Investigation Violates Article 300A Of The Constitution [Udai Narain v. State of UP & Ors.] The Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra observed that withholding the amount of gratuity payable to a retired employee of State merely on account of pendency of criminal investigation against him at the time of retirement violates Article 300A of the Constitution. "The right of a retired employee to receive pension and gratuity is recognised as a property which cannot be deprived except by having recourse to law in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The power of State to withhold pension and gratuity, therefore, must be exercised strictly as per the applicable law and if the State action is not found to be in consonance with it, the withholding of gratuity would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The denial of such constitutional right, therefore, would be liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," held the court. ● Allahabad HC Imposes Cost On State For Delaying Payment Of Post-Death Dues Of An Employee [Sant Prasad Seth v. State of UP & Ors.] The Allahabad High Court came down heavily upon state authorities for delaying the payment of post-death dues, namely, Provident Fund, Gratuity and arrears of salary etc. of an employee, for over 24 years. "Denial for payment of dues of deceased employee for the last more than 24 years is without any basis and patently arbitrary. It shows that adamant and illegal attitude on the part of respondents. Withholding of post death dues for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment must however feel afraid of committing such a sin. It is morally and socially obnoxious. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillars of our constitution," Justice Sudhir Agarwal said. Bombay High Court ● Asks Petitioner Challenging CAA To Approach SC The Bombay High Court refused to hear a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Urmila Kowe challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act. A division bench of Justice RK Deshpande and Justice AB Borkar of Nagpur bench observed that the Supreme Court was already hearing petitions challenging the said act and asked the petitioner to approach the apex court. ● Power To Attach Bank Accounts Can Be Used In Limited Circumstances, Not An Omnibus Power [Kaish Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India] The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an order by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence holding that the said order of provisionally attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner was without jurisdiction. A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MS Karnik was hearing a writ petition filed by Kaish Impex Pvt Ltd through its Director Deepak Kumar. A provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account was ordered by the GST authorities on suspicion after a transaction between the company which they suspected to be availing input tax ...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags