Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2024 [Citations 1 - 200]
Sparsh Upadhyay
8 April 2024 2:40 PM GMT
![Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2024 [Citations 1 - 200]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/04/03/750x450_532018-allahabad-high-court-quarterly-digest-2024.webp "Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2024 [Citations 1 - 200]")
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER UP Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 | Eligibility/ Quantum Of Compensation For Rape Victims To Be Decided By DLSA, Not Court: Allahabad HC Case Title: Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5804 of 2023] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1 The Allahabad...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER
Case Title: Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5804 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The Allahabad High Court has asked a rape victim seeking compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 to approach the District Legal Service Authority.
While clarifying the procedure for rape victims for claiming compensation, Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that “the 'eligibility' of the victim for grant of compensation and quantum thereof can only be decided by the D.L.S.A. The court concerned can only make a 'recommendation'. It falls within the jurisdiction of D.L.S.A. to decide whether the 'claim' falls within the parameter of the scheme of 2014 or not. The role of the court, in such circumstances is formal and no more”
Case title - Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The Allahabad High Court has mandated that individuals facing the possibility of character certificate cancellation due to criminal antecedents must be given a show cause or hearing opportunity.
Emphasizing the importance of due process and fair treatment in such matters, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla read Clause-4 of the Government Order dated April 10, 2023, to include therein (on implied basis) that the Character Certificate cancellation action may be taken after issuance of show cause notice to the concerned citizen within one week from the date of receipt of information as to registration/pendency of criminal case.
The court's interpretation suggests that the proposed action to cancel a Character Certificate under Clause-4 should only proceed after issuing a show cause notice to the citizen within one week of receiving information about the registration or pendency of a criminal case.
“Notice may be served on the citizen within two weeks thereafter. The notice citizen may be granted two weeks therefrom to furnish his reply. A short date for a hearing may be fixed within a further period of two weeks therefrom and appropriate order may be passed in terms of Clause-4 of the Government Order dated 10.4.2023, thereafter.”
Case title - Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3
In a criminal proceeding initiated at the instance of a wife against her sisters-in-law (accused) for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court granted relief to the accused as it noted that they are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while allowing a revision plea challenging the order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gorakhpur rejecting the discharge application of the accused (sisters-in-law) filed under Section 245 CrPC.
“The court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication, as these are married sisters-in-law of the complainant who are stated to have been living at far away place during the period when offence of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry was practised against the complainant,” the Court noted as it directed the Magistrate to consider their discharge plea afresh.
Case Title: M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1390 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ court should not interfere in notice issued under Section 73 of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material is alleged and established.
Petitioner challenged the adjudication notice issued under Section 73 (Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the reply filed by the petitioner. The notice under Section 73 was preceded by a notice under Section 61 (1) of the UPGST Act which provides that
“The proper officer may scrutinize the return and related particulars furnished by the registered person to verify the correctness of the return and inform him of the discrepancies noticed, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed and seek his explanation thereto.”
Case Title: M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 790 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank and Another to hold that a fresh auction cannot not be held merely on the possibility of receiving higher offers.
While setting aside order of the Company Judge calling for fresh auction at higher reserve price, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“In the present case, it is not in dispute that auction notice was widely published. None has otherwise come forward Company Judge raising a grievance that the auction was not widely circulated or anyone was prevented from submitting his bid. No higher bid was otherwise placed before the Company Judge. No infirmity is otherwise shown in the publication of auction notice or the conduct of auction. It is in this backdrop that we are not inclined to concur with the view taken by learned Company Judge in ignoring the highest bid submitted by the appellant and direct holding of a fresh bid in the matter.”
Case title - Devendra Pratap Yadav Thru. His Father And Pairokar Arjun Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the pleas filed by two persons challenging their detention under the National Security Act (NSA) on the allegations of burning copies of Hindu epic Ramcharitmanas and insulting the text.
In its order, a division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed that the public display of disrespect towards the Ramcharitmanas, which is considered to be a sacred scripture of the majority community, during broad daylight, is likely to provoke strong sentiments and anger within the society.
“In the case at hand, the manner in which the petitioner along with his associates, in a public place, in broad daylight, insulted the religious text Ramcharit Manas related to the events of the life of Lord Ram, worshipped by the majority section of the society as per their religious beliefs and faith, is bound to generate resentment and anger in the society, a scenario of religious frenzy and anger spreading in the society, especially in the present situation where almost every person of the society is connected with mobile phone and social media,” the Court observed.
Case title - Sunil Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The Allahabad High Court has observed that firing a pistol in self-defence does not violate license conditions. With this, the Court ordered the release of a pistol in favour of the applicant, who had been charge-sheeted under Sections 286, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act 1959.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order on an application moved under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow wherein the applicant's application for release of pistol, 4 live cartridges and pistol license had been rejected.
Case title - Sumit And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court has held that the cognizance of an offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code can be taken by a court only on a written complaint of the concerned Court (which issued the proclamation) and the Police have no power to lodge an FIR in such cases.
For context, Section 174A IPC, which was introduced in 2005, criminalises the non-appearance of proclaimed offenders at the specified place and time.
In brief, as per HC's ruling, cognizance of the offence under Section 174A IPC can be taken by a Court only based on a written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 CrPC against the accused.
Case Title: M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1400 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court has held that a minor typographical error in the e-way bill without any other material establishing an intention to evade tax will not attract a penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Placing reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others, the judgment of Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“Upon perusal of the judgments, the principle that emerges is that the presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to the imposition of penalty.”
Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal,Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No. 7, Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7791 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court held that under Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, there is no requirement of prior notice to tenant for filing an eviction application before the rent Authority under the Act, if the eviction is for personal use of the tenanted premises.
Distinguishing the procedure under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 from the Act of 2021, Justice Alok Mathur held,
“According to sub section 2 (m) of Section 21 the landlord has only to demonstrate that the premises are required for his occupation. This provision is clearly distinguishable from the provisions in erstwhile Act No.13 of 1972 where the aspect of comparative hardship and bonafide requirement was to be established by the landlord.”
Case title - Rajit Ram Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11 [WRIT - C No. - 9336 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the UP Government. This action was taken as the Standing Counsel, seemingly unprepared, wasted 10 minutes of 'precious' judicial time while presenting arguments in a writ matter.
Justice Abdul Moin issued the order, marking the third instance on a single day (January 8) where the Court came down heavily on Standing Counsels for their inability to effectively assist the court in the matters before it. Read details of two other orders here and here.
In the instant case, after the matter had been argued for around 10 minutes, the Court went through the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the judgements as cited by counsel for the petitioner and noted the arguments of counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel prayed for some time to study the matter.
Case Title: Diwakar Singh vs. State of UP [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5914 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 243(2) of the CrPC, the Magistrate is under an obligation to not compel re-appearances of prosecution witnesses already examined by the accused unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
While dealing with the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for summoning defence witnesses, Justice Jyotsna Sharma held that the witnesses who have already put in appearance at the time of prosecution evidence and have been cross-examined by the accused should not be summoned again unless the Magistrate is satisfied that summoning such witnesses is essential for meeting the ends of justice.
The Court further observed that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be sparingly used. The Court observed,
“Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected.”
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 13121 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13
The Allahabad High Court upheld the cancellation of the appointment of a primary school teacher as it was based on forged documents.
The bench comprising of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that “a person such as petitioner, who has procured appointment as Teacher on basis of forged educational documents, cannot be entitled for any sympathy and he is required to be dealt with strictly.”
The Court held
“It is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Petitioner has not submitted any document which could contradict the findings returned by Inquiry Officer as well as by disciplinary authority that forged educational documents were provided by petitioner at the time of his appointment.”
Case Title: M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1507 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the registration of the assesee is cancelled, any notice for proceedings under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 shall be served on the address of the assesee. The Court observed that merely uploading notice on the web portal without any intimation to the assesee will vitiate any subsequent action as being bad in law.
Elaborating on the need for judicious application of the principle of audi alteram partem in legal and administrative proceedings, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“In the present case, when the petitioner had cancelled its registration in the year 2019, a proper notice was required to be issued to it under Section 74 of the Act at its address. However, the authorities simply uploaded the Section 74 show cause notice on the web portal inspite of knowing that the petitioner had already cancelled its registration prior to the date of issuance of the show cause notice. This action clearly prevented the petitioner from appearing in the hearing in the original proceeding under Section 74 of the Act that was accordingly passed ex parte.”
Case title - Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Reading Sections 154 & 155 of CrPC conjointly, the Allahabad High Court has observed that anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR.
This includes not only the victim or an eyewitness but also any person who becomes cognizant of the offence, extending even to police officers themselves, the Court added.
“The universality of the authority to lodge an F.I.R. is a foundational principle ensuring that the criminal justice system remains accessible to those with information about potential criminal acts. This inclusivity empowers informants comprising victims, eyewitnesses, and even law enforcement officers to initiate the process, fostering a collaborative and comprehensive approach to crime reporting,” a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.
Case title - Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The Allahabad High Court observed that a stray statement made by any person by calling someone 'mad', may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, the same doesn't constitute an offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).
A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioner, in a complaint case, for an offence under Section 504 IPC for allegedly calling the complainant a 'mad person'.
“…it appears that it was a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace,” the Court remarked.
Case Title: Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3046 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried daughter has the right to obtain maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, irrespective of her religion and age if she falls within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act.
The Court held that a person seeking only maintenance has recourse under other laws. However, if a person is “aggrieved” as per the Act, then independent right is available to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“In my view the legislature, while enacting this Act had this realization in mind that though existing provision of law provide for rights of maintenance to eligible persons, however the procedural delays defeat the very purpose,” observed Justice Jyotsna Sharma.
Case title - Maulana Mohammad. Shabib Hussain @ Syed Mohd. Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a Muslim Scholar who has been accused of issuing a fatwa to kill former Shia Waqf Board chairman Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi Aka Waseem Rizvi after he converted to Hindu religion renouncing Islam.
A Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan granted bail to Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini who allegedly stated in an interview on a YouTube channel that it is desirable to kill Rizvi by uttering words - Katl Wajib Hai (it is desirable to kill).
Case Title: Saurabha Srivastava And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 19
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has power to determine market value of the land at the time of execution of sale deed or period reasonably proximate thereto.
While dealing with challenge to proceedings under the Stamp Act, 1899, Justice Abdul Moin relied on the full bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. and others and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gyan Prakash vs. State of U.P. and others to hold that
“the market value of the land would have got nothing to do with the circle rates inasmuch as it is the determination of the Collector which would determine the market value of the land along with some material which may have a direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic value on the basis of which he can come to a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been correctly indicated in the instrument/sale deed.”
Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20 [WRIT - A No. - 11483 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The Allahabad High Court reiterated the position settled by the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) that a nominee of a government employee is merely a custodian, however, any benefits that accrue after the death of such government employee can only be conferred upon his/her legal heirs.
Petitioner's ex-husband died after retiring as an Assistant Teacher at Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. Though the husband had wedded again, the petitioner's name was recorded as his nominee. Petitioner claimed entitlement to the retiral benefits based on her name being mentioned as his nominee and the fact that she was his wife for many years.
SARFAESI Act | Right Of Redemption Cannot Be Taken Away By Insufficient Notice: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sharp Industries vs. Bank Of Maharashtra And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The Allahabad High Court has held that right of redemption under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an important right which cannot be taken away or breached by the authorities by insufficient notice.
While observing that it is settled law that service of notice upon the borrower is mandatory under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“Right of redemption is an important right available to a borrower, who is in default. Such important right cannot be taken away and any action taken in its breach cannot be approved of.”
Case title - Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1016 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person can move subsequent bail anticipatory bail applications on the emergence of substantial change in facts and circumstances.
Noting that there is no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure on moving subsequent regular bail applications u/s 439 CrPC, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan held that there is no restriction on moving subsequent anticipatory bail applications if there is a change in circumstances.
Case title - Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23 [WRIT - C No. - 20596 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The Allahabad High Court directed the district magistrates posted at Haridwar (in Uttarakhand) and Bijnor (in Uttar Pradesh) districts to direct for the erection of pillars in their respective areas to demarcate the boundaries between the two states on January 23rd.
The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla while disposing of a writ petition filed by one Gurpreet Singh (a resident of Bijnor district).
Case Title: Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24 [WRIT - C No. - 18397 of 2018]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The Allahabad High Court held that the applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 depends upon the date on which the award is made and not on the date on which possession was taken over by the authorities.
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,
“Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 clearly mandates that where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of the new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply. The applicability of the said provision is not dependent upon the fact as to whether possession has been taken or not under the provisions of the old Act.”
Case Title: Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25 [WRIT TAX No. - 1524 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Allahabad High Court has held that the seizure of a vehicle transporting goods affects the civil rights of the transporter as the truck is a capital asset of the transporter. The Court held that the transporter ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing any penalty order against him.
While observing that the vehicle carrying the goods could be released under proviso-1 of Section 129 (6) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on payment of Rs. 1 Lakh, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held
“Truck being the valuable property and a capital asset of the transporter which is utilised to generate revenue/ income, we perceive valuable civil right of the petitioner having being adversely affected exparte.”
Case title – Brij Mohan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The Allahabad High Court observed that an offence under Section 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation) if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence.
To hold thus, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi referred to a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 1989, notifying the declaration made by the then Governor of UP that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC when committed in Uttar Pradesh, shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Case title – Mohit Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10364 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The Allahabad High Court has observed that while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot examine the contention of the accused that he/she has been falsely implicated in the case.
“While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted.
Case title – Keshav Ugan Jha vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11379 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against an accused cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may also disclose a civil dispute between the parties.
“The mere fact that the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicant,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted.
Case title – Abdul Kadeer Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26217 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the proceedings of the base cases depicted in the gang chart are quashed or the accused has been acquitted, the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 are liable to be quashed.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted thus while hearing a plea moved by one Abdul Kadeer Khan under Section 482 CrPC assailing proceedings initiated against him under Sections 2/3 of the 1986 Act.
Case Title: Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 30 [WRIT - C No. - 19866 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB)
The Allahabad High Court held that the Union Government is bound by the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention) as India is a signatory to the same. The Court held that the government cannot disbelieve Apostille documents issued by countries signatory to the Apostille Convention.
The Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, also known as Apostille Convention, is an international treaty for abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents. It was brought in to replace the cumbersome process of certification of documents of one country by another. If two countries are signatories of the Apostille Convention, then documents issued by the government of one country are legally recognizable in the other country without any further need of verification.
Case Title: M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31 [WRIT TAX No. - 937 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the invoice accompanying the goods contains all the details of the vehicle then not filing of Part-B of the e-way bill is a technical error without any intention to evade tax. The court quashed the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act imposing penalty on grounds of missing details in Part-B of the e-way bill accompanying the goods. The appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32 [ SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 79 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 of the Schedule II Part A as per notification No.KANI-2-421/XI-9(1) dated 31.03.2011 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
The Department challenged the order of the Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 on grounds that the list in Entry 109 was exhaustive and did not include granite stone. It was argued that granite stone was unclassified and liable to be taxed at 14.5%.
Case title - Mohd. Arkam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2174 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused (Mohd. Arkam) who was arrested in September 2022 on the allegations of actively participating in strengthening the Popular Front of India (OFI) organization to establish 'Gazwa-e-Hind' in India.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I granted him bail as it noted that the trial in the case is still pending and there is no likelihood of it being completed soon coupled with the fact that the appellant has no criminal history to his name and thus, Section 43-D of the UAP Act is not attracted.
Case Title: Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34 [WRIT - C No. - 35732 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court has held that a negative report by the District Magistrate does not decide the claim for visa and citizenship. The Authorities have to decide the same based on merits, it said.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed:
“The authorities vested with the jurisdiction to decide the claim existing and the claim made being pending before them, we cannot shut out the case of the petitioner merely on the basis of the negative report submitted by the District Magistrate, at this stage.”
Case title - XXX Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35
"...we are not living in a western country, where this type of relationship is very popular and common among the citizens, We live in country, where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country," remarked Allahabad High Court while dismissing a habeas corpus plea filed by the purported lover of a girl (alleged detenue), who claimed that her family members had unlawfully confined her.
The Court also directed the petitioner (Ashish Kumar) to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000/ [to be paid to the detenue "for damaging her image in the society"] as it noted that entertaining the petition would demolish the image and reputation of family members and the girl.
Case Title: Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 177 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the divorce granted by the Court below to a couple living separately for almost 13 years.
In the divorce petition filed by the husband, the Court below had decided the issue of dissertation against him. However, divorce was granted on grounds of mental cruelty inflicted by the wife on the husband.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that cruelty need not only be physical in nature. In case of mental cruelty, it may be impossible for the spouse to continue in the martial relationship.
Case Title: Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37 [WRIT - C No. - 1005250 of 1990]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Forest Corporation is an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employees working as 'mali' who are involved in systematic activities regarding forests are no casual employees.
The bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held,
“Considering the aforesaid judgments and also nature of the work involved in the present case where the workmen were working on the post of Mali and were involved in the task of plantation in the forest and distribution of forest produce, the said exercise was definitely a systematic activity and they have been working for four years continuously, it cannot be said that they were daily or casual employees engaged only intermittently.”
Case Title: Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [WRIT - C No. - 22011 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has expressed surprise on how despite guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, banks are being allowed to charge higher rates of interest from their customers.
While dealing with a case regarding higher interest rate charged by Standard Chartered Bank without informing the petitioner, the bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed,
“Surprisingly, RBI had been issuing guidelines but has done nothing for the implementation of the same. They have just been a mute spectator allowing the banks to charge arbitrarily a very high rate of interest.”
Case title - Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1041 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39
In an important assertion, the Allahabad High Court said that given the other remedies available for the purpose, under criminal and civil law, the exigence of a writ of habeas corpus at the behest of a husband to regain his wife would be rare and may not be available as a matter of course.
A bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava emphasized that such a writ may not be readily available and should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances when a compelling case is presented.
“In a situation where the husband seeks to assert that the wife, without reasonable cause, is refusing to return to her matrimonial home, it would be open for him to seek the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the Court added.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another [WRIT - C No. - 17412 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court directed the University of Allahabad to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 to a candidate who was otherwise eligible if the criteria had not been changed subsequent to the closure of registration forms.
In a petition filed by a candidate seeking admission in second post graduate course in the University of Allahabad, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that since the eligibility criteria was changed after the petitioner had already applied, he cannot be non-suited for failing to meet the changed criteria.
Case title - Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 794 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The Allahabad High Court explained the difference between the scope of Section 311 CrPC [Power to summon material witness, or examine person present] and Section 233 CrPC [Entering upon defence] concerning the production of defence witnesses during the trial.
“Under section 311 CrPC, the power lies in the courts only and under section 233 CrPC, the right lies with the accused and the court's interference is limited,” the Court emphasized.
Case Title: Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - A No. - 5813 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that denial of pension by retrospectively applying the amended rule is a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
While restoring pension of retired members State Electricity Regulatory Commission as prescribed under the unamended Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Condition of Service of the Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2008, the bench comprising of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“The denial of payment of pension to the petitioner as per the un-amended Rules, 2008 and application of National Pension Scheme to the petitioners on account of the retrospective application of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2008 as amended vide Rules, 2021 is absolutely arbitrary and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Section 89 (2) of the Act.”(Referring to Electricity Act, 2003).
Case title – Bhola Das vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The Allahabad High Court dismissed as 'infructuous' a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which sought to prohibit Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath from conducting the Ram Mandir Pran Prathishtha ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that since the Pran Prathishtha ceremony has already concluded, the PIL plea has been rendered infructuous.
The PIL plea, filed by 79-year-old Bhola Das, prayed that the Prime Minister of India and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh be refrained from taking part in the Pran-Pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya until the conclusion of the 2024 parliamentary elections and until they obtain consent from all Sanatan Dharm Guru Shankaracharya.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44 [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. 874 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court has held that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not have the power to modify an award. The Court held that though parts of an award can be severed and set aside, provided such severance does not affect the remaining award.
“Reduction of interest is nothing but a modification of the original arbitration award, and accordingly, the same is illegal and against the principles established by the Supreme Court,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf relying on the decision of Supreme Court in on Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India and others.
Case Title: Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45 [WRIT - C No. - 15864 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to pay additional compensation of Rs. 5,26,000 against the medical bill vouchers of mother-son duo who suffered acid attack injuries.
The bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“It has been well established from the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 1051 and Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 that medical grant is a fundamental right under the sweep of Article 21 which relates to Right to Life and Personal Liberty of all persons living in India.”
Case title - Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court observed that a husband is duty-bound to provide maintenance to his wife u/s 125 CrPC even if has no income from his job and he can earn Rs. 350-400 per day as an unskilled labour.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805 wherein it was held that a husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Section 107 Of CGST Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47 [WRIT TAX No. - 291 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
“The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 777 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The Allahabad High Court has held that there cannot be any suppression as to information about conviction/acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case by any candidate seeking employment. The Court held that if there is any suppression of fact regarding criminal history, it can lead to cancellation of candidature or termination from service.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwaria, the bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“From considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) it can be concluded that the information given to the employer by a candidate as to the conviction/acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case whether before or after entering into the service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. Any contravention made by the candidate shall cause cancellation of his candidature, dismissal from service if already appointed.”
Case Title: M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49 [WRIT TAX No. - 4 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that before passing of any adverse order, such as imposing tax or penalty, opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated against such person.
UPGST | Burden To Prove Intention To Evade Tax Lies Solely On Department: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50 [WRIT TAX No. - 228 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court held that the burden to prove intention to evade tax lies solely on the Department. The Court held penalties in tax laws should not be imposed solely on insignificant technical errors which do not have any financial consequences.
The Court held that penalties should only be imposed where there is concrete evidence to show that an assesee is deliberately trying to defraud the system and not in cases of unintentional mistakes.
Commercial Tax | Allahabad High Court Upholds Condonation Of 1365 Days Delay On Sufficient Cause
Case Title: M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 302 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court has upheld condonation of delay of 1365 days by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in filing of appeal as it was sufficiently explained by the authorities.
Revisionist-assesee approached the High Court against order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal condoning the delay of 1365 days on part of the Department in filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Anil Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow to argue that inordinate delay cannot be condoned on wholly vague and generic grounds.
Case Title: Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. 407 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court directed the Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 afresh.
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the time during which an applicant/plaintiff prosecutes a case in a court without jurisdiction shall be excluded from the computation of limitation provided the same is done with bonafide intention.
Case Title: Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1951 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Expressing alarm over a petition concerning continuous strike in Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia, the Allahabad High Court remarked,
“In our judicial system, strike brings the wheels of justice to a standstill, bringing cheer and happiness amongst enemies of justice. Their whips get thicker, sticks more brutal to deepen bleeding wounds day-by-day, their apathy to listen the cry stronger and their sleep against call for justice turning into a deep slumber, so long as the saviours of justice, i.e. the lawyers and the Judges, do not come for rescue of the victims of injustice.”
Case Title: M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54 [WRIT TAX No. - 1188 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance to consider extending the benefit of extension of time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to orders passed under Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, issued Notification No. 53/23- Central Tax dated 2nd November 2023, extending the time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act till January 31, 2024 for orders passed under Section 73 and 74.
Case title - Ved Prakash Govil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21858 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55
The Allahabad High Court has observed that acts like fabricating the document or misappropriating funds do not form part of the official duty of a public servant to claim protection under Section 197 of CrPC.
For context, Section 197 CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also opined that in cases where there exists even a minor uncertainty regarding whether a public servant's action or omission falls within the purview of official duty, the determination of this issue should be reserved for trial proceedings based on evidence.
“Unless that issue was decided on the basis of evidence during the trial, the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in the exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., mainly because a person claiming himself to be a public servant alleges that his act was in discharge of his official duty,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 637 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56
In a case involving large number of fake “ODs” in Amity University, the Allahabad High Court has held that when enquiry proceedings are being held against large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold a detailed enquiry against every individual involved.
“OD” is the attendance earned by students by participating in trainings, seminars, workshops or other extra-curricular activities. It is an online system and ODs can only be granted using login-id and password of the faculty involved.
The bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“It is now well settled that violation of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula but depends on facts of each case. Where enquiry is not against any particular individual but broad based and involves a large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold detailed enquiry against each individual. If on examination of facts, it emerges that a fair procedure has been adopted without causing any material prejudice to any person then the courts have declined to interfere.”
Case Title: M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57 [WRIT TAX No. – 276 0f 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to impose penalty on the assesee.
The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“At its core, a show cause notice represents the initial step in an administrative or legal process, wherein an individual or entity is formally apprised of allegations or discrepancies attributed to them. This notice serves as a mechanism to afford the recipient an opportunity to present their side of the story, provide clarifications, or rectify any perceived errors before any punitive action is taken.”
Case Title: Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1391 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court has held that grounds under Section 11 (Void Marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 are very different from grounds under Section 12 (Voidable Marriages) and thus, a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.
The Court held that a marriage performed in contravention of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Act is void and cannot be cured or ratified. However, in case of a voidable marriage, declaration is necessary, otherwise the marriage continues to subsist.
The bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“Needless to point out that a void marriage is regarded as non-existent or as never having taken place and such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio can be sought under Section 11 of the Act on the grounds as provided therein whereas a voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. Unless the decree is granted, the lis remains binding and continues to subsist.”
Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59 [Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere technical errors under tax laws without any financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of penalties.
While dealing with the case of goods not accompanying e-way bill, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“Mere technical errors, without having any potential financial implications, should not be the grounds for imposition of penalties. The underlying philosophy is to maintain a fair and just tax system, where penalties are proportionate to the gravity of the offense. In the realm of taxation, imposition of penalty serves as a critical measure to ensure compliance with tax laws and regulations.”
Case title - Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) granted interim bail to Ghosi MP Atul Rai on medical grounds until March 22 noting that he is suffering from a “life-threatening” ailment and hence, needs immediate redressal.
Stressing that no matter how serious an offence is, the health condition of a human being is paramount, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan directed that Rai be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs.
“The custody during the period of trial cannot be termed to be punitive in nature. The health concern of a person in custody has to be taken care of by the State and is to be keenly watched and evaluated by the judiciary. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively medically treated even if he is under trial or a convict,” the Court remarked.
Case Title: Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority Payment Of Wages Act 1936 And Additional Labour Commissioner and 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12595 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court has held that a judge appointed in individual capacity by name acts as a persona designata but when he is appointed by his designation alone, he acts as a Court.
The Court held that the test to determine whether appointment is made as a persona designata or not is to see if the person has been appointed by “his name alone, the description or designation being given only to identify him.” If only the post or the designation is mentioned, then the appointment is as Court and not as persona designata.
The Court thus held that order passed by a judge in appeals under Section 17 (Appeals) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in his official capacity are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title:- Satendra Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62 [WRIT - C No. - 31168 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the sibling fee relief granted by a school is subject to certain conditions and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
While dealing with the rustication of two siblings from Delhi Public School, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad due to issue regarding the applicability of sibling fee scheme benefit, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed,
“I find that the Sibling Fee Relief under the Circular dated 5.8.2021 issued by the respondent No. 7 is a benefit offered to the parents whose two children are studying in the institution subject to certain riders and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”
Case Title: Sumant Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others [WRIT - A No. - 14824 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63
While dealing with a case where oral evidence was not led by an employer to prove charges against the, the Allahabad High Court remarked that “the seriousness or enormity of the charge does not license the employer to jump to conclusions.”
Directing the reinstatement of the employee, Justice J.J. Munir observed,
“The more serious the charge, the more serious the consequence for the employee that are likely to ensue, in the event of its proof, and, the more strict, therefore, would be the requirement of procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry, where, the inquiry must proceed according to salutary and settled principles of holding a fair inquiry, which requires the Establishment to discharge their burden in the first instance, by leading evidence, with due opportunity to the delinquent.”
Case Title: Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid And Another [ First Appeal No. 30 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The Allahabad High Court has held that a prayer of urgent relief should not be used as a tool to circumvent the requirement of pre-litigation mediation contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that where urgent relief is not contemplated in a suit, the plaintiff must exhaust the remedy of pre-mediation litigation before instituting a suit.
Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“the invocation of urgent relief should not serve as a pretext to circumvent or evade Section 12A of the Act. It is imperative that the factual matrix and contextual intricacies of each case are comprehensively assessed from the plaintiff's perspective. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has expounded that any attempt to cloak or disguise the true intent behind seeking such relief, with the intention of sidestepping the statutory obligation of pre-litigation mediation, warrants scrutiny, particularly in instances where duplicity and falsehood are manifest or substantiated.”
Case title - Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66 [WRIT - C No. - 1348 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court has held that no sanctity could be attached to an interfaith/inter-religious marriage which has been performed without the compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021.
The Court court clarified that in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 came into force [after November 27, 2020] the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed thus:
"...if conversion is done in relation to marriage of the persons belonging to different religions, irrespective of any past event, which might or might not attach sanctity to conversion, in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 has come into force, i.e., after 27.11.2020 as per Section 1 (3) of the Act, the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act..."
Case Title: M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67 [WRIT - C No. - 3774 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award passed in a reference made under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 must be challenged as per provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that any application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council under the MSED Act shall not be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not the supplier) deposits 75% of the decretal amount.
Case Title: M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68 [ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 42 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very narrow. The Court held that debatable questions of fact cannot be gone into by the Court while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator.
“The rival contentions regarding arbitrability, in my view, cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. Its adjudication requires appreciation of evidence. The scope of judicial review in deciding issue of arbitrability is very limited,” held Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69 [WRIT - C No. - 1614 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has upheld the cancellation of firearms license on grounds that categorically factual findings were recorded by the authority regarding the conduct of the petitioner being detrimental to public peace and safety.
The Court observed that Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the licensing authority to vary the conditions of the firearm license granted. The licensing authority also has the power to suspend or revoke firearm license if, inter alia, licensing authority is satisfied that the suspension or revocation is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 414 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Allahabad High Court has held that the same Magistrate cannot be the witness and the judge in the case initiated by him against the SHO (Inspector In-Charger) under Section 29 of the UP Police Act.
Section 29 of the UP Police Act provides penalties for neglect of duties by a police officer mentioned therein including wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or a lawful order made by competent authority. Penalties for such erring police officer are upto three months' pay, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both.
Case Title: Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12988 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of anapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint) on grounds that notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is not mandatory if it will defeat the purpose of the injunction suit.
Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 provides for suits against municipality or its officers, it is mandatory to provide a two month notice period to the municipality and its officers. The notice must contain the cause of action, nature of relief sought, amount of compensation claimed, and name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left at the address of the municipality or its officers whoever is sought to be impleaded.
Case title - Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41458 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court has observed that appropriate action should be taken against victims who initially lodge an FIR under Section 376 IPC (Rape), POCSO Act & SC-ST Act but turn hostile by retracting their statements during the trial after receiving compensation from the Government.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav further emphasized that such cases result in a waste of the investigator's and the court's time and resources.
Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73 [Writ Tax No. 1544 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court has held that before taking any adverse decision under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assesee even if there is no request on his part.
Relying on various decisions of the Allahabad High Court regarding mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“Even if no request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”
Case Title: M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74 [Writ Tax No. 141 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty which was imposed due to production of expired e-way bill at the time of detention. The Court held that no intention to evade tax was established by the authorities. Since, there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the Court held that penalty could not be imposed for a technical error in absence of any intention to evade tax.
Case Title: Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75 [WRIT TAX No. - 1482 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the new law, it is not necessary for the assessing authority to record “reasons to believe”. The Court held that the assessing authorities are only required to record bonafide satisfaction regarding escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held,
“under the amended law, it is no longer, the obligation of the Assessing Authority to record a "reason to believe", before assuming jurisdiction to reassess an assessee. A bonafide satisfaction reached as to escapement of income made suffice the test of valid assumption of jurisdiction.”
Case title - Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17109 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is the 'dark face' of the society where parents, disapproving of their children's love marriages, resort to filing FIRs against the boy under familial and societal pressure, showcasing a troubling trend.
“The court after hearing the parties, records its deepest anguish, whereby this social menace is deep rooted that even after 75 years of independence we are fighting the cases with his opponents on this score only,” the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar remarked.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 87 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High has held that where assessee has paid far more tax than the input tax credit claimed, Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 will not apply.
Section 13(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides conditions in which input tax credit can be claimed by an assesee holding a valid registration. Section 13(1)(f) of the Act provides that
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this sub-section where goods purchased are resold or goods manufactured or processed by using or utilizing such where goods are sold, at the price which is lower than (i) purchase price of such goods in case of resale; or (ii) cost price in case of manufacture, the amount of input tax credit shall be claimed and be allowed to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods or manufactured goods.”
Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1417 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78
The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. It only has the power to confirm or modify or annul the order under appeal.
Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the remedy of appeal to an assesee aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the CGST Act. Sub-section 11 of Section 107 empowers the appellate authority to pass orders either confirming, modifying or annulling the order under challenge. However, sub-section 11 specifically prohibits the appellate authority from sending the case back to the authority whose order is under challenge.
Person Summoned U/S 319 CrPC Can't Avail Remedy Of Discharge U/S 227 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person added as accused after being summoned under Section 319 CrPC cannot seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
Referring to top Court's judgement in the case of Jogendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2015), a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan opined thus:
“…an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC is entitled to invoke the remedy under the law against an illegal and improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, however, the same cannot have the effect of the order being undone by seeking a discharge under Section 227 CrPC”
Case Title: Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [WRIT - A No. - 18971 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a petition must be carefully drafted, disclosing all relevant facts for grant of relief sought by the petitioner.
While dealing with a bunch of cases relating to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that
“In order to make out a case to grant the relief sought, a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully. Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e., petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.”
Case Title: Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18652 of 2016]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not prescribe who can file a complaint on behalf of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.
The Court held that when company is the payee, the complaint must be registered in the name of the company.
“Section 142 of the N.I.Act does not specify as to who should represent the company, if the company is the complainant. A company can be represented by an employee or even by a known employee, who is duly authorized and empowered to represent the company either by resolution or by a power of attorney,” held Justice Prashant Kumar.
Case title - Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6549 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that samples not drawn from the bulk in the presence of a Magistrate as per the mandate of Section 52A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) can't be treated as a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial.
For context, Section 52A (2), (3) and (4) of the provide that when seized contraband is forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, the officer must draw samples from the seized goods in the presence of a magistrate who shall certify its correctness. It is further provided that the inventory or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of samples in connection thereof on being certified by the Magistrate shall be recognized as primary evidence in connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act.
Case title - Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45953 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a demand notice sent to the drawer of a cheque through 'email or WhatsApp' under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument for the dishonour of a cheque, is a valid notice and the same shall be deemed to be dispatched and served on the same date, if it fulfils the requirement of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act.
For context, Section 13 of the IT Act provides that as soon as the notice in electronic form is entered, a computer resource outside the control of the originator, it is deemed to be dispatched and as soon as the notice in electronic form is entered, the designated computer resource or enters the computer resources of the addressee, and then it is deemed to be served.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court permitted a woman having four biological children to adopt a child, despite a legal bar under Adoption Regulations 2022, notified by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 68(c) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Rule 5 of the Adoption Regulations provides that couples with two or more children shall only be considered for adoption of special needs children and hard to place children, unless they are relatives or step-children.
In this regard, while giving the custody of X to the petitioner, her foster parent, the bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla observed,
“While the law could not prevent the petitioner from giving birth to another child, it has been relied to deprive the petitioner from bringing up another child as her own. To take away X from the petitioner is the easiest part in law but it is not possible for law to find another set of parents X may identify as its own. Therefore, law must yield to justice that otherwise commends that the child X must remain in the care of those it perceives to be its parents, especially the petitioner in whom it has found its mother.”
Case title - Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 1989]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court altered the conviction of a man for the offence of 'murder' under Section 302 IPC to one of 'voluntary causing grievous hurt' under Section 325 IPC as it noted that though the accused had caused an injury to the victim by throwing a piece of brick at him, the said injury cannot be categorised as an injury likely to cause death.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that for deducing the requisite intention or knowledge of the accused, it has to be seen whether he was aware of the consequences which shall follow or likely to follow as a direct consequence of his act.
“Where such an awareness of the direct consequences or the higher degree of probability cannot be attributed to the accused, the offence may not fall either under section 302 IPC or section 304 IPC, In our firm opinion, in such cases the offence may be covered under section 323, 324 and 325 IPC as the case may be,” the Court remarked.
Case title - Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18245 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The Allahabad High Court observed that mere use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).
The court added that for an act to come under the purview of this offence, it has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult was such that is likely to insult a person or to commit a breach of the peace or commit an offence
Case Title: Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 35362 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court has held that rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.
The Court held that question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact requires evidence to be led by contesting parties. The issue of limitation as such cannot be decided at the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC unless the pleading in the plaint show the plaint to be barred by limitation, it said.
Case Title: Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 19344 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted on a higher post than the post which was held by the deceased employee, despite the applicant having higher educational qualifications.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suneel Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others and the observations given by the Apex Court while reversing the decision of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Premlata vs. State of U.P. and others, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held,
“Apex Court had twice interpreted the Rule 5 Rules 1974 as well as suitable employment as referred herein. Apex Court has clearly held that "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be construed with the post held by the deceased employee and not by the higher qualification held by the dependent. View of the Apex Court is that compassionate appointment shall not be given upon a higher post than the post held by the deceased employee. Therefore, as on date, law of land is that legal heir cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground to a post higher than the post held by the deceased employee.”
Case Title: Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16068 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court has held that the statutory condition for not granting compassionate appointment if the spouse of the deceased employee is already in government employment is only limited to the spouse and cannot be extended to children of the deceased employee.
The Court held that the son being in government employment at the time of the death of his father would be irrelevant since his earning may be utilized for providing for his own family, wife and children.
Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Challenged U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12798 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90
The Allahabad High Court observed that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge the order.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while relying upon a full bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others wherein it was held that an aggrieved person, having a remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91 [ SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 206 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of res-judicata does not apply from one assessment year to another. However, the Court held that the Department cannot be allowed to change its stance for the same assesee for different assessment years, unless there is a marked change from one year to another.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“One may of course keep in mind that in taxation matters, the principles of res-judicata do not apply squarely for one assessment year to the other. However, keeping in mind the doctrine of finality, unless there is a marked change from one assessment year to the other, the department cannot be allowed to take a different stand.“
Case Title: Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92 [WRIT - C No. - 6606 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The Allahabad High Court has held that fees deposited by a student at the time of counselling is quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student by the institution.
While directing the respondent college to refund the fee deposited by the student at the time of first counselling, who is now seeking admission elsewhere, Justice Manish Mathur observed that
“In case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment. It is the opinion of this Court, that fees deposited by a student is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student. This is more so, as in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop up rounds of counselling have taken place.”
Case Title: Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15229 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93
While dealing with a challenge against the cancellation of appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Education Department based on the re-evaluation of answer booklets, the Allahabad High Court has held that less meritorious candidates cannot be allowed to continue on the posts at the cost of meritorious candidates.
The Court held that in the absence of a challenge to the process of re-evaluation, merely citing the lack of statutory provisions, cannot be a reason to disregard the process and accommodate less meritorious candidates who were selected based on fraudulent tabulation of marks.
“Fairness is the soul of any competitive examination. Any compromise of merit would betray confidence and trust of meritorious candidates on examination system and in case some irregularity is detected during process of examination and there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of justice and to maintain fairness, an endeavour has to be taken to cure it,” held Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery.
Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.- 36 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court has held the revision jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural. The Court held that the High Court must refrain from going into questions of facts which have been decided by the Tribunal.
Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides that any person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 57(7) or Section 57(8) of the UPVAT Act can file a revision before the High Court on grounds that the case involves questions of law. The limitation for filing such revision is ninety days from the service of such orders.
“In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has a limited mandate. The scope of revisional jurisdictional, is primarily focused on questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities. The High Court in a revision petition must refrain from engaging in a de novo inquiry into factual matters already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, unless compelling grounds warranting such intervention are made,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95 [WRIT TAX No. - 144 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Allahabad High Court has held that not filing a reply to a show cause notice does not take away the opportunity for personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act provides that an opportunity for a hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated against such person.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held that there is a dual requirement engrained in the principles of natural justice.
“First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.”
Case Title: M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96 [WRIT TAX No. - 739 of 2020]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96
While quashing penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Hawkins Cookers Limited, the Allahabad High Court cited the Arthashastra by Chanakya.
“Governments should collect taxes like a honeybee collects honey from a flower without disturbing its petals.”
The Court held that in absence of any other discrepancy, incorrect address entered in four out of eight e-way bills is of the principal place of business of the petitioner, the same does not give rise to the presumption of intention to evade tax. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner.”
Case Title: Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97 [Writ Tax No. 83 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of self-certified copy of order is not applicable to the appeals filed electronically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any order passed under the Act. Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides that the appeal under Section 107 must be filed in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents, either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The Allahabad High Court has observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minors or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.
Justice Rahul Chaturvedi's bench further noted that in cases where couples being adults, enter into marriage, the action of their parents of filing FIRs against the husband-boy, is like poisoning their marital relationship.
The Single Judge also observed that the Court have to sometimes grapple with justifying State/Police action against a teenage couple who marry, lead peaceful lives, and raise families, while also upholding respect for the law.
"This Court has time and again reached to the conclusion that true love between the individuals, one or both of who may be a minor or at the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action," the Court remarked.
"When the scale of justice has to be weighed, they are not on the basis of mathematical precision or the mathematical formulas or theorems, but at times, while on one side of the scale there is the law and other side of scale may carry the entire life, happiness and the future of toddlers, their parents and the parents of their parents. The scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality would definitely equal the scale carrying the law as the application of law is meant for maintaining the rule of law and an orderly society," it added.
Case title - Tufel Ahamd vs. Abu Rafat And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99 [SECOND APPEAL No. - 928 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Expressing displeasure with the Stamp Reporter section of the HC for erroneously listing an application against an order concerning temporary injunction in a pending suit as a 'Second Appeal', the Allahabad High Court observed recently newer generation staff in the Stamp Reporter section lacks sufficient knowledge of the law.
“…the newer generation of staff recruited in the Stamp Reporter have scant awareness about the law, though they may have plenty of knowhow in working with the computers, on which they enter data,” a bench of Justice JJ Munir observed.
Case title - Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8877 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the campus of the police line is a sensitive place where the Armory, District Wireless Control Room Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, and therefore, the public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh made this observation while refusing to quash a criminal case against a leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) who has been booked inter alia under Section 153B of IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932 for allegedly trying to enter in a Mosque located inside the Police Lines premises in Pratapgarh to offer namaz.
Case Title: Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a "court," falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC.
Moreover, once the award attains finality, any objections must be raised exclusively in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title - Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1343 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to former Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board chairman Wasim Rizvi (now Jitendra Tyagi) in an FIR lodged against him for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the adorable personalities of the Sunni Sect of the Muslim community in his film Ram Ki Janmabhoomi.
In the FIR, Tyagi, who wrote, produced and acted in the film, was booked under section 153-A and 504 IPC in the year 2019 on the allegations that the screening of the film may lead to communal tension in the city.
Case Title: C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 791 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suspended principal of a college cannot take part in any selection or recruitment process. The Court held that in absence of any challenge to the appointment of Officiating Principal, the appointments made in his presence in the selection committee cannot deemed to be invalid.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“A suspended Principal cannot take part in the recruitment proceedings, nor can he be expected to form part of the selection committee.”
Case title - Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20280 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday explained what constitutes a 'prima facie case' or 'prima facie satisfaction' and when it can be said to have been made out before a Magistrate proceeds to summon/issue process against an accused under section 204 CrPC.
A bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that before issuing a process against an accused, the Magistrate has to hold an inquiry as envisaged under section 202 CrPC, to look for 'sufficient ground to proceed' (as per Section 204 CrPC) against the accused, which is nothing but a 'prima facie satisfaction' of the Magistrate.
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 321 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchased by husband in the name of wife who is a homemaker and has no independent source of income is a family property. The Court held that it is common and natural in Hindu husbands to purchase properties in the name of their wives.
While dealing with son's claim for declaration of co-ownership of deceased father's property, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,
“This Court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is homemaker and does not have independent source of income, will be the property of family, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.”
Non-Appearance Of Advocate For His Client Amounts To Professional Misconduct: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Observing that advocates are not appearing in the majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates, the Allahabad High Court said that the non-appearance of a counsel for his client amounts to professional misconduct and also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in the year 2019 as infructuous as it noted that both the applicant and his counsel were absent during the court hearings.
Compliance Of Section 21 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Is Mandatory: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court has held that the compliance of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) is mandatory. Thus, arbitral proceedings would only commence once the notice invoking arbitration issued by the claimant is received by the respondent.
The Bench comprising Justice Manju Rani Chauhan was adjudicating a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by borrowers, challenging the arbitration proceedings initiated against them by Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. without serving a Notice Invoking Arbitration. The Bench has quashed the arbitration proceedings for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 of Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart And Another v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 657 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of detention prescribed in the confirmatory order passed by the State Government under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be reviewed or extended by reviewing such order.
The Court held that for detaining the person any further, a fresh detention order needs to be passed under Section 3(2) of the Act and such order has to be confirmed as per procedure prescribed under Sections 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act.
Case title - ABC vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109 [name of the applicant hidden]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that If a person ('customer') comes to a brothel and pays money for the satisfaction of his lust, then, at the most, it can be said that he procures a woman to satisfy his lust and not for commercial purposes and hence, it can't be said that he procured or induced the woman for prostitution.
Case Title: Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110 [WRIT - A No. - 9908 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The Allahabad High Court has held that no action under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation can be taken for an incident which took place four years prior to the retirement of the employee.
Regulation 351–A of CSR empowers the Governor to reserve to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.
Case title - Dinesh Paswan vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111 [CAPITAL CASE No. - 4 of 2022 With Reference No.4 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man, who had brutally raped and killed a three-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh in October 2021, to a fixed-term sentence of 30 years without any benefit of remission.
Considering the age of the accused (25 years at the time of the incident) along with his marital status, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi found it appropriate to commute his death sentence.
Case Title: M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112 [WRIT TAX No. - 975 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeals filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that Tax laws are complete comprehensive codes which have strict procedural requirements to ensure revenue certainty and fiscal stability.
Section 107 of the UPGST Act provides a period of three months from the date of order to file an appeal challenging the same. Section 107(4) empowers the appellate authority to exercise discretion in condoning delay of up to one month in filing the appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a general provision which enables Courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.
Case Title: M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113 [WRIT TAX No. - 1314 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of no discrepancies or clerical errors in the documentation, the initial burden to prove that there is intention to evade tax lies on the department.
While quashing penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service tax Act, 2017, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“It is a fact that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases to show that there was no evasion of tax. However, when the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax.”
Case Title: M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114 [WRIT TAX No. - 1109 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court has held that absence of tax invoices and/or e-way bill at the time of interception and their subsequent production does not absolve the assesee from the liability of penalty under the Goods and Service Tax Act.
“Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.
The bench of Justice Abdul Moin has observed that, as per Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, a judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision, and the reason for the decision, which were not compiled by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while passing the judgement.
Case Title: Deepak Sharma v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116 [WRIT - C No. - 2208 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court has held that taking possession of property pursuant to proceedings under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers an appropriate Government to acquire land in case of urgency for public purpose. While acquiring land under Section 17, the land vests in the Government after 15 days from the date of notification without any encumbrances. Passing of an award under the Act is not necessary.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court called the Uttar Pradesh Government's action of stopping worship rituals inside Vyas Tehkhana (located at the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) in 1993 as ILLEGAL. The Court said that the worship rituals were stopped by "illegal action of State without there being any order in writing".
"The act of the State Government since the year 1993 restraining the Vyas family from performing religious worship and rituals and also by the devotees was a continuous wrong being perpetuated": a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal observed in his 54-page order which was released soon after the bench pronounced its verdict of dismissing Gyanvapi Mosque committee's appeal challenging the Varanasi Court's January 31 order allowing 'Puja' In 'Vyas Tehkhana' (southern cellar of Gyanvapi Mosque).
Case Title: Deepak Sharma vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118 [WRIT - C No. - 2208 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118
The Allahabad High Court has held that taking possession of property pursuant to proceedings under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers an appropriate Government to acquire land in case of urgency for public purpose. While acquiring land under Section 17, the land vests in the Government after 15 days from the date of notification without any encumbrances. Passing of an award under the Act is not necessary.
Case Title: M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has quashed the order by the GST and Central Excise Superintendent for lack of jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur has observed that according to the circular dated February 9, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue, the power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, and Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, and in the present case, the amount involved is more than Rs. 16,00,000, and consequently, the order passed by it is without jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S Neeraj Potato Presarvation And Food Products Pvt.Ltd. v. U.P. Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Faciliation Council And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120 [WRIT - C No. - 35190 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court has held that without registration for financial services under Section 22 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 along with Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the alleged loan advanced by the petitioner was a private contract not amenable to recovery under the aforesaid laws.
The bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“For the purposes of MSMED Act and to provide financial services under Section 22 of the Act, 1976 the petitioner ought to have the registration under the MSMED Act, 2006 for 'financial activity', which admittedly could not be explained by the petitioner. The petitioner having not been registered under the MSMED Act for financial activity and there being a private agreement between the petitioner and the contesting respondents, the petitioner could not have sought a recovery for an alleged loan purportedly granted under Section 22 of the Act, 1976 by taking aid of the provisions contained under MSMED Act.”
Case title - Jatan Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2965 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a cheque is returned unpaid by a Bank with an endorsement 'Account Closed', it would amount to 'dishonour of cheque' and constitute the commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta further added that the return of the cheque by the drawee Bank alone constitutes the commission of offence under section 138 of the NI Act.
To conclude thus, the single judge relied upon Apex Court's judgments in the cases of NEPC Micon Ltd. vs. Magma Leasing Ltd (1999), wherein it was observed that when the cheque is returned by a bank with an endorsement account closed, it would amount to returning the cheque unpaid, because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account, is insufficient to honour the cheque as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 52 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court has held that no appeal lies under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against an order rejecting amendment application in petition filed under Section 278 of the Act of 1925.
The Court held that since Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC does not provide a remedy of appeal against orders passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rejecting amendment application, the same needed to be challenged either by filing revision under Section 115 CPC or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Case title - Pinki And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123 [WRIT - C No. - 1579 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner while observing that such type of 'illegal relationship' need not be protected by the court.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal also imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the live-in couple (petitioners) as it observed that if it would indulge in “such type of cases” and grant protection to “illegal relationship”, then it will create 'chaos' in the society.
Case Title: Syed Hamidul Bari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124 [WRIT - C No. - 11383 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that by common sense, businessman having possession of large portions of land by illegally taking the same from the slum dwellers without required sanctions cannot be termed as slum dweller.
“Presuming in a slum, a businessman finding good business opportunity, takes possession of a large piece of land from the actual slum dwellers and illegally, without required sanctions, constructs a multiplex or a big hotel or a big shopping complex or raises any other such big business constructions. Can he, merely because he did these activities within a slum, claim to be a slum dweller entitled to the protection given to dingy houses of slum dwellers, despite all aspects of the matter reflecting his disparity with actual slum dwellers? The answer 'NO' comes to us too loudly.”
Case Title: Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 163 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for filing private interest litigation in the grab of public interest litigation.
The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted in such cases including the present one.”
Case Title: M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126 [WRIT TAX No. - 1632 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that search and seizure of a godown of an assesee cannot be penalised in proceedings under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Section 129 of the Act provides procedure for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances which have been intercepted in transit and are found to be in contravention of the statute.
Case Title: M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 127 [Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.2 Of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 127
The Allahabad High Court has referred the question of whether an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for time extension can only be heard by the Supreme Court or the High Court where the appointment of such arbitrator has been made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be.
Further, the Court has raised a query regarding the powers of the 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act to adjudicate on an application under Section 29A of the Act.
Case Title: Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128 [WRIT - C No. - 41110 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has lifted the corporate veil to hold the Promoters/Directors of M/s Hacienda Projects Private Limited and M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. who are in default, liable for defrauding flat-buyers of the Lotus 300 project in Sector 107, Noida.
The bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar has directed the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to proceed against all the directors/promoters/designated promoter/officer who are in default, companies/other entities in which money from Hacienda Projects is syphoned or parked.
Case Title: Ashish Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129 [WRIT - C No. - 25554 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129
The Allahabad High Court has held that the concept of a separate legal identity of a company was to encourage trade and commerce and not as front for the directors to commit illegalities and defraud people.
While directing the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to proceed against all the directors/promoters or designated promoter/officers who are in default and against the companies/other entities in which money from M/s Cloud 9 Projects Private Limited was siphoned or parked, the Court held
“….the concept of separate corporate entity was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commence, but not to commit illegalities or to defraud people. Therefore, where the corporate character is employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding others, the Court would ignore the corporate character and will look at the reality behind the corporate veil.”
Case title - Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a legally wedded Muslim wife can not go outside marriage and her live-in relationship with another man would be 'Zina' (fornication) and 'Haram' (act forbidden by Allah) as per the Shariat Law.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal asserted thus while rejecting a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner fearing for her life against her father and other relatives. The Court added that the 'criminal act' of the woman "cannot be supported and protected" by the Court.
Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131 [WRIT TAX No. - 206 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court has held that were a statutory appeal has been filed and the condition for pre-deposit has been complied with, stay applications filed along with such appeals must be decided within a reasonable time.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order for putting up the stay application filed on 24.01.2024 in appeal pending for last four years on a separate date fixed. It was argued that purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated if the stay application is not decided.
Case title - Vivek Soni And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1791 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court has directed a court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) in Varanasi to dispose of the petition in 8 weeks seeking unrestricted right to worship the 'Shiv Linga' purportedly found inside Gyanvapi Mosque premises in May 2022.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam ordered thus while hearing an application filed by one Vivek Soni and another under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had approached the High Court requesting expeditious disposal of their plea.
Case Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the applicant accused of availing excess input tax credit as the proceedings under Section 70 and Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were pending since long.
The Court held that the punishment for wrong availment of input tax credit is imprisonment which shall extend upto 5 years and fine under Section 69 read with section 132 of the Act. For a registered person, every second offence or thereof shall be punishable. The Court further relied on Section 138 of GST Act which provides that for compounding of all offences can be done before or after prosecution is commenced when payment is made by such person.
S.5 Limitation Act Applies To Rectification Of Orders U/S 31 Of UP VAT Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to rectification of orders passed by officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Case Title: M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the GPS tracking system showed slow movement of the truck due to mechanical issues in the engine, penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not have been imposed for not extending time-period in e-way bill. The Court held that not extending time period in such case was a technical breach.
Case Title: M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the Goods and Services Tax Regime was launched in 2017, there were difficulties in downloading e-way bills. However, the difficulties were resolved and from April 2018 there were no difficulties in generating the same. The Court held that goods not accompanied by both tax invoices and e-way bill is not a common mistake. It shifts the burden on the assesee to show that there was no intention to evade tax.
Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137
While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.
Case Title: Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138 [WRIT - C No. - 33840 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1965 for not following the directions given by the District Judge while allowing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title - Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court has directed a Special Judge MP/MLA/ Civil Judge (SD), Pratapgarh to decide afresh a plea moved by a Public Prosecutor seeking to withdraw an abduction and attempt to murder case against Kunda MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (Raja Bhaiya), MLC Akshay Pratap Singh and others.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on an application moved by Raja Bhaiya, Akshay Pratap Singh and others challenging the order of a Special Court in March 2023 whereby the application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of the prosecution against the applicants had been rejected.
Case title - Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140
The Allahabad High Court recently provided clarity on the scope of "Exceptions" within the "Bail is the rule and Jail is an exception" principle of Criminal Jurisprudence. These exceptions are circumstances where the general rule of granting bail is overridden due to specific factors.
"These exceptions might include concerns about flight risk, potential danger to the community, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, or possibility of repeating offence. Essentially, while bail is generally favoured to ensure the presumption of innocence, exceptions exist when there are compelling reasons to detain someone before trial," a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed.
Case title - Raju Sahu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141
In a significant relief for the slum dwellers of the Akbarnagar area of the Lucknow District, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that all persons being rehabilitated from Akbar Nagar slums and applying for EWS accommodation, be provided such an accommodation and the entire process of shifting be completed by March 31st.
Noting that those applying for EWS accommodation may face some financial constraints, a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla reduced the initial registration deposit from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000.
Case title - Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 617 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an appeal against all the orders passed by the Child Welfare Committee, except where the order has been passed relating to foster care or sponsorship of foster care, shall lie to the children's court as per Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and not to the District Magistrate.
A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while noting that in numerous instances, Children's Courts erroneously dismiss legal challenges to CWC orders by citing Section 27(10) of the JJ Act, 2015 (appeals to the DM) even when they are legally bound to entertain such appeals.
Case Title: Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party.
Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144 [WRIT - C No. - 41540 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has issued modalities to be followed by Regional Passport Offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh on intimation of police reports to applicants with pending criminal 'proceedings' seeking for issuance of fresh passport, renewal or re-issue of passports.
Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court are pending against any alleged offence committed by the applicant. Section 10(3)(e) gives power to the passport authorities to revoke or impound a passport for the same condition as Section 6(2)(f).
Case Title: Smt. Bhagonia Devi vs. Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Banda And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145 [WRIT - A No. - 2065 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court awarded a salary plus cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to a peon working in school operated by District Basic Education Authorities, as she had been denied her full salary despite working full time as peon.
Petitioner had approached the High Court in 2010 seeking full salary as she was only paid Rs. 15 per month despite the salary being Rs. 165 per month. The respondent authority had appointed the petitioner as a “Full Time Peon”, however, subsequently the appointment was withdrawn as not being duly approved.
Case title - Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed International Shooter Vertika Singh's plea challenging Sultanpur Special MP/MLA Court's October 2022 order rejecting her defamation complaint against Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development, Smriti Zubin Irani.
A Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam observed that the trial court had given cogent reasons for not summoning Irani to face trial under section 499/500 IPC, as according to the trial court, there was no sufficient material/ground for proceeding further in the defamation case.
Case Title: Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147 [WRIT - C No. - 6450 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'proceedings' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be understood as criminal case registered after filing of chargesheet. It starts with the filing of the FIR, the Court observed.
Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court for any alleged offence committed by the applicant.
Case Title: M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148 [WRIT - C No. - 39170 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has awarded tender to the highest bidder who was above the reserve price as the tendering committee had failed to scrutinize tender documents and acted in a lax manner.
Petitioner participated in e-tender-cum-e-auction for short-term permit, also regarding Gata No.62 and 63/1 Area 42.00 acre, Village Khapatiha Kala, Tehsil Pailani, District Banda. Petitioner's bid was the second highest. The petitioner then filed an application stating that the highest bidder had not filed self-attested copies of the Aadhaar Card, Pan Card, and Character Certificate and therefore, its bid was liable to be rejected.
Case Title: Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 7895 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court has held that the cause of action under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises after expiry of 15 days granted to the drawer to pay the amount to the payee/cheque holder under clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act.
Section 142(1) of the NI Act provides that a complaint must be made within 1 month of the date from which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of Section 138. Clause (c) of Section 138 provides that action under Section 138 may be initiated if the drawer of the cheque fails to pay the amount due to the payee/ holder of the cheque within 15 days from the date of notice. Further, Section 142(1)(b) provides that if sufficient cause is shown, delay in filing the complaint may be condoned by the Court.
Case title - Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150
The Allahabad High Court has held that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and that it can't be dissolved by a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a Criminal Revision plea filed by a Husband challenging the order of the family court directing him to pay Rs. 2200/- per month as maintenance to his wife-respondent in the plea moved by her under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151 [WRIT-C No.12727 OF 2012]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Placing reliance on its earlier decision in Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and other, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that there was a deficiency in stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale deed is upon the Department.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that in the absence of mandatory spot inspection under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, the burden was upon the Department to prove that the land was not being used for the purpose stated in the sale deed.
“Such being the case, the burden of proof that rested solely on the Revenue to indicate the nature of the land and the potential use of the land was not discharged properly. Furthermore, the reasoning provided by the authorities below for valuing the land on the basis of non-agricultural cannot be sustained as the same is based on another piece of the land that was much closer to the highway and certain constructions were made on that piece of land.”
Case title - Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.
For context, Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trials and the provision states that the 'Court can order as it think fits for the proper custody of the property'.
“So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made,” emphasised a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed.
Case Title: Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153 [WRIT - A No. - 4063 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court has refused to extend the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section category for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers held in 2020, as the process was initiated before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.
The state of UP enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020), published in the Gazette on 31.08.2020, for implementation of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of the society.
Case title - Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3277 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court reprimanded Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Gorakhpur for issuing a notice to a man under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act 1970 against a man based upon a solitary case registered against him. The Court also directed the state to pay Rs 20K to the man within 2 months.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar also directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of UP to ensure that the public servants exercising powers of the State "remain within the bounds of law" and violation of law may entail disciplinary proceedings against them.
Case Title: M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155 [WRIT TAX No. - 7 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court has held that for goods in transit, vehicle number in bilty (consignment note) cannot be changed upon change of vehicle due to breakdown. The Court quashed the penalty order on grounds that vehicle number was updated in Part-B of the e-way bill.
Petitioner's goods were intercepted, and penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the bilty and invoice accompanying the goods had the earlier vehicle's number.
Case title - Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by a couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses, imposing a fine of 2K. The court emphasized that if such type of relationship gets the support of the Court, it will create chaos in society and destroy our country's social fabric.
"The Court cannot support such type of relationship which are in contravention of law. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, if spouse of a person is alive or before obtaining decree of divorce, a person cannot get married with another person," a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed as it dismissed the protection plea.
Case title - Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157
The Allahabad High Court has observed that before issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 of CrPC, the Court concerned must record its satisfaction that despite the service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, the person concerned has deliberately avoided the proceedings.
Emphasizing that if any order issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 CrPC lacks the procedure described above, such an order would be a nullity in the eyes of the law, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed thus:
"...any order of proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. must be passed on an application of a person concerned/ Investigating Officer etc. to the effect that after service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant upon the person concerned, he/ she is avoiding the proceedings so a proclamation may be issued and on such application, which must be supported with an affidavit, the court concerned may issue proclamation under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. indicating the subjective satisfaction on the aforesaid aspect in the order itself."
Case title - Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158 [WRIT - C No. - 1546 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while dismissing a protection plea filed by a live-in relationship couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses.
"The court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulges in such type of cases and grants protection to illegal relationship, then it will create chaos in the society, hence such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court," the court observed as it emphasised that such relationship cannot be supported by the orders of the Court.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159 [WRIT - C No. - 5548 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal and authorized occupier of a premises including a tenant cannot be deprived of basic amenities like electricity connection. However, the Court observed that this right to basic amenities is subject to other facts and circumstances.
Reading the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(oo) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2005, the Court held that an occupier must be a legal and authorized occupier of the premises to seek such electricity connection.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Barabanki district by which cognizance of the offence under 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) was taken against the then Chief Development Officer (CDO) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district in connection with the alleged scam in the construction of public toilets.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in a revision plea filed by the State Government challenging the order of the CJM, Barabanki.
Case Title: Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court set aside the order of a Single Judge granting a blanket stay on the order passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil - Obra, District - Sonbhadra under Section 134 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The Court held that the stay could not have been granted as the stay application was pending before the Commissioner.
Respondent filed a writ petition seeking early disposal of the stay application pending before the Commissioner. The Single Judge had directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner be decided within 6 months period with a further direction that during the pendency of the appeal, the order impugned shall remain stayed.
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162 [WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court has held that for natural products that are also grown inside India, presumption cannot arise that they have been smuggled. The Court held for assuming jurisdiction in such cases, the custom authorities must show that credible material exists to give rise to “reason to believe” to empower them to confiscate the goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
“Curtailment of free trade has serious consequences. While the revenue authorities would be within their jurisdiction to exercise their power to seize and confiscate goods that may have been smuggled inside the customs frontiers, yet with respect to natural products, that are also grown inside the country, no presumption is available to presume or assume that such goods are smuggled unless the assessee or the citizen otherwise satisfies that they are of Indian origin.”
Case title - Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163
The Allahabad High Court observed that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, the payment made by the Husband towards the monthly instalment of personal loan has to be added to his net monthly income.
The bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I added that merely on the ground that a wife is a BA degree holder and has done some professional course, no presumption can be drawn that she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself.
Case title - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25862 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164
The Allahabad High Court directed all the Judicial Magistrates as well as Presiding Officers of Family Courts in the state, dealing with maintenance proceedings, to mandatorily pass a specific order directing the parties to file their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32.
"It seems appropriate to direct that when an application under Section 125 of CrPC or a complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act or an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed before the Court concerned, it should by passing a specific order on the order-sheet direct the applicant to file his/her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed while directing the registry to circulate its order to all the Judicial Officers of the state.
Case title – Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2138 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court clarified that when a witness is recalled after another person has been added as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, the examination of that witness is limited to the newly added accused only.
In other words, the HC held that only the accused who has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC has a right to cross-examine a witness and the persons who were accused since before and who had already availed opportunity of cross-examining the said witness, have no right to cross-examine the said witness again.
“A bare reading of Section 319 (4) CrPC indicates that where a person is summoned under Section 319 (1) to face the trial, the proceedings shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard only in respect of such person and not in respect of all the accused persons,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held.
Case title - Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166
In a relief to the founder and Group CEO of Future Group, Kishore Biyani, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings including a summoning order and a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him in connection with a case related to a commercial transaction.
A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order on Biyani's application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Gorakhpur court's summoning and NBW issuance order passed in a criminal complaint moved against him under Section 120B, 463, 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC.
Case title - Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court has QUASHED a criminal defamation complaint case filed against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The complaint, filed by a Lucknow-based freelance Journalist (Mohd Kamran), alleged that MP Singh wrote letters to State Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defaming him.
A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that the letters in question appeared to be confidential and privileged communication between two constitutional authorities (Member of Parliament and Chief Minister). The Court also noted that the evidence on record did not suggest that MP Singh caused the letters in question to be published in the print media or digital media or on social media platforms.
Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 56 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court held that any such marriage can only be dissolved by a decree passed a competent Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“The marriage between the parties since are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955.”
Case Title: Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169 [WRIT - C No. - 31840 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere allegations of having 'bad character' do not disentitle a person from claiming benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016.
“Fighters of Democracy” are defined under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016 as the residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh who actively fought during the emergency period from 25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977 and were detained in political grounds in jail under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for participating in such activities.
Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170 [Writ Tax No. 777 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'capital goods' as defined under Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are for long term use whereas 'inputs' are meant for day-to-day business operations and are not capitalized in the books of accounts.
“Capital goods are intended for long-term use and are typically subject to capitalization. However, inputs, are goods used in the day-to-day operations of the business and are not subject to capitalization,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171 [WRIT TAX No. - 50 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court has held that the use of word 'or' in Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is disjunctive in nature which means that there are two situations provided in which opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assesee and both situations must be considered independently while applying Section 75(4).
Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 contemplates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be given to an assesee if he so requests in writing “OR” any adverse decision is contemplated against such assesee.
Case Title: Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 272 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172
The Allahabad High Court has held that on a combined reading of Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 no permission of the Court is needed by the adult head of Hindu family for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in joint family property.
Section 6 of the Act provides that for a Hindu minor and the minor's property (excluding their undivided interest in joint family property), the father shall be the natural guardian and after him the mother is the natural guardian.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 214 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173
The Allahabad High Court has held that the scope of judicial review in rejection of a candidature based on medical condition found during medical examination is limited. The Court held that unless the medical board or the department has violated any guidelines issued for conduction the examination, interference by Court is not justified.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“The limited issue which has to be examined by the medical board is as to whether on the date of medical examination the candidate was medically fit or unfit. Whether the candidate was accorded consideration in terms of the policy/rules for medical examination would be the issue. It is only the correctness of such opinion by the medical board which can be examined in the review medical board. Judicial review of such administrative action would not involve recognition of a right in a candidate to get himself operated upon, even after he has been validly found unfit on a particular medical exigency so as to get himself operated and thereafter apply for fresh consideration of his candidature.”
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174 [WRIT - A No. - 12559 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court has held that the general category is called “open category” because there can be migration from reserved category to general category but not vice versa.
Accordingly, it was held that a reserved category candidate scoring higher marks than a general category candidate will be given priority in open category selection process. However, vice versa is not applicable for selection in reserved category, where only candidates of reserved category shall be selected.
Case title - Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3099 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether the dismissal of complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 for want of prosecution will amount to acquittal u/s 256(1) CrPC, and same can be challenged in appeal u/s 378(4) CrPC or is that order revisable u/s 397 CrPC?
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench while disagreeing with the order of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Vinay Kumar Vs. State of UP 2007 wherein it was observed that against the dismissal of complaint u/s 138 NI Act, an appeal lies u/s 378(4) CrPC and not a revision.
Case title - Faizan Ahmad @ Idrisi Faizan Shamshad Ahmad And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2250 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a summoning order as well as a charge sheet against 3 persons in a case related to their alleged act of raising anti-India slogans in a temple, while a religious preaching was going on there.
Denying them the relief, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the allegations against them are of hailing another country and raising slogans against our nation, and of abusing and threatening the persons present in religious preaching, which clearly make out a case of trial of the applicants.
Case title - Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
While DISMISSING the challenge made to the cancellation of the lease of Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar University's land in the state's Rampur District, the Allahabad High Court strongly criticized the acts of the then Cabinet Minister and Senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan for misusing his position to perpetuate personal gains.
The judgment, passed by a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, emphasises that the grant of lease of Government land to Jauhar Trust was an outcome of "abuse and misuse of power" by the then Cabinet Minister as he acted "without scruples" and under influence of the public office he held, succeeded in "circumventing the law".
Case title - Masood vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
The Allahabad High Court has GRANTED BAIL to Masood Ahmed, a student leader, in connection with the 2020 Hathras 'Conspiracy' case wherein 4 persons including Masood and Siddiqui Kappan, a journalist, have been booked by the UP Police under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
While passing this order, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I took into account the fact that the Supreme Court has already granted bail to co-accused Kappan and that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
Case Title: Om Prakash vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179 [WRIT - C No. - 39901 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two interpretations of a fiscal or penal statute are possible, the interpretation which exempts the subject from penalty must be adopted rather than the one which imposes penalty.
The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“As regards interpretation of a penal or fiscal statute, it is well settled that if two views or constructions are possible, the Court must lean towards that view/construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is also well settled that if there is a reasonable doubt or ambiguity, the principle to be applied in construing a penal provision is that such doubt or ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person who would be subjected to penalty.”
Case Title: Ram Narayan Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180 [WRIT - A No. - 37974 of 2015]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of service in Government Polytechnic, Sri Nagar, Garhwal in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh before its division in 1997 must be counted as continuity in service for the purpose of computation retiral benefits, especially pension.
Initially, the petitioner was appointed as 'Auto/Motor Mechanic' at Government Polytechnic, Sri Nagar, Garhwal where he continued till a fresh appointment was made as Anudeshak Motor Mechanic in Government Polytechnic, Jhansi in the same capacity. After retiring in 2015, the petitioner claimed retiral dues which were withheld by the authorities.
Case title - Pramod vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2447 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181
The Allahabad High Court clarified that the criminal cases in which the accused are not charge-sheeted under the SC/ST Act are liable to be processed under the provisions of CrPC, even if the offence is being tried by the special court established under the SC/ST Act.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while dealing with an application filed by one Pramod seeking bail in a Murder case after his bail plea was rejected by the trial Court in December 2023.
Case title - Shakti vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
The Allahabad High Court has issued a show cause notice to an Oath Commissioner to show cause as to why he must not be removed from his post for executing affidavits without there being signature of Deponent and proper identification by Advocate.
Expressing serious displeasure at the conduct of the Oath Commissioners, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed,
“It is found that Oath Commissioners being appointed are not maintaining the standard of professionalism and are executing affidavits without signature of the Deponent in the affidavits. In the past occasions, the matter was referred to Competent Authority, however, despite reference, it has been informed that no action was taken in the previous matter. Inaction on the part of Competent Authority is resulting in encouragement to Oath Commissioners in executing affidavits without signature of Deponent.”
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To SHUATS Director Vinod Bihari Lal In An Attempt To Murder Case
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51149 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology And Sciences (SHUATS) director Vinod Bihari Lal in a case lodged against him for allegedly attempting to murder, causing grievous hurt to a person.
A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal granted him relief while directing him to deposit Rs. 10 lacs before the trial court before his release. The Court further ordered that any violation of the bail conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of bail and the immediate release of the deposited amount to the State.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 184
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court EXPUNGED the remarks made by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, Ravi Kumar Diwakar in one of his orders pertaining to the 2010 Bareilly Riots case wherein he had praised UP CM Yogi Adityanath and stated that "religious person in power gives good results".
While expunging Judge Diwakr's "unwarranted" remarks "containing political over-tones and personal views", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that it is not expected from the judicial officer to express or depict his personal or pre-conceived notions or inclinations in the matter.
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 209 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the quashing of termination of an employee after he had an unblemished service record of 30 years.
Petitioner was appointed in the Schedule Tribe category against posts of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale in 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Senior Scale and was eventually promoted on the post of Deputy Controller on 31.07.2013.
Case title - Succha Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2814 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186
The Allahabad High Court granted short-term bail to 4 elderly murder accused, including two with 100% blindness, till their cases for premature release - pending before the State Government - are not decided.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad in line with the HC's order of January 10, 2024 [passed in the case of Ganesh Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2016)].
Case Title: Devraj Singh vs. Babli Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5882 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of the Family Court granting extension of time to defendant-wife for filing written statement beyond the statutory period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC during pendency of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides that a defendant shall file his written defense within 30 days from the receipt of summons. The proviso to Rule 1 provides that the defendant may be allowed to file written statement after a period of 30 days on any other day specified by the Court. However, such period cannot exceed 90 days from the date of receipt of summon.
Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188 [WRIT TAX No. - 228 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature.
The Court held that if the assessing authority is unable to obtain the registered email address from the income tax returns or from the designated portal of assesee or website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, then it is upon the assesee to provide the email address to the authority.
Allahabad High Court Declares 'UP Board Of Madarsa Education Act 2004' As Unconstitutional
Case title – Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) declared the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as UNCONSTITUTIONAL violating the principle of Secularism. A detailed Judgment is awaited.
While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 190
The Allahabad High Court single judge Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of four years.
Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant.
Case Title: Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192 [WRIT - A No. - 5017 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court has granted compassionate appointment to daughter-in-law as the son of the deceased was suffering from 75% disability. The Court held that daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is supposed to be treated like a daughter.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“As per the custom of Indian Society, daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family. The main purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of death of sole bread earner of the family.”
Case title - Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2998 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193
The Allahabad High Court has held that an Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the provisions of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held thus while perusing the mandate of Sections 28 and Section 17 (1) & (2) of the 1994 Act. For context, Section 28 bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority. Section 17 provides for the manner of appointment of an 'appropriate authority'.
Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, the alleged forged document was filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.
For context, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Applicable To Live-In Relationships Too: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195 [WRIT - C No. - 1067 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The Allahabad High Court observed that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 applies not only to marriages but to relationships in the nature of marriage or live-in relationships.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal made this observation while dismissing a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple (petitioners) as it noted that the duo had not applied for registration of any conversion under the provisions of the 2021 Act.
Case Title: Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 756 of 1982]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The Allahabad High Court has held that suit for permanent injunction under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 is not maintainable against the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring a land as reserved forest area.
The Court held that such notifications can only be challenged before the Forest Settlement Officer as per the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1927.
“….once notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 were issued and published in official gazette, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar.
Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197
The Allahabad High Court held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 11555 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee placed under suspension during the period of detention cannot be denied wages upon acquittal in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry and bail during the period of suspension.
The Court further held that such an employee who has been suspended during the period of detention needs to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period.
“The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case Title: Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others. [WRIT - C No. - 68334 of 2005]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The Allahabad High Court held that the effect and operation of any interim order passed is wiped out at the passing of the final order.
The bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal held that “once an appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, the interim order, if any, passed thereon automatically merges with the final order.”
The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra wherein the Supreme Court held that where stay is granted vide an interim order and the petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order is merged with the final order. It was held that beneficiary of the interim order must pay interest upon the vacation of the interim order on the amount withheld or not paid due to the interim order.
1996 Assault Case: Allahabad High Court Stays Conviction Of Actor & Congress Leader Raj Babbar
Case title - Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) stayed the conviction of actor and Congress politician Raj Babbar in connection with a 1996 case lodged against him for allegedly assaulting a polling officer when he was contesting the Lok Sabha election from Lucknow (then) as a Samajwadi Party candidate.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan on a plea moved by Babbar under Section 389(2) CrPC challenging an order of conviction passed by a Lucknow MP/MLA court in July 2022 wherein he was sentenced to two years in jail.
NOMINAL INDEX
Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3
M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4
M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Devendra Pratap Yadav Thru. His Father And Pairokar Arjun Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Sunil Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 7
Sumit And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 8
M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal,Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No. 7, Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Rajit Ram Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Diwakar Singh vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13
M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Maulana Mohammad. Shabib Hussain @ Syed Mohd. Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Saurabha Srivastava And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Sharp Industries vs. Bank Of Maharashtra And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24
Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Brij Mohan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Mohit Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27
Keshav Ugan Jha vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28
Abdul Kadeer Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 30
M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34
XXX Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Bhola Das vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48
M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53
M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Ved Prakash Govil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56
M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58
M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority Payment Of Wages Act 1936 And Additional Labour Commissioner and 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Satendra Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Sumant Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66
M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67
M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72
M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73
M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77
M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90
M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95
M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Tufel Ahamd vs. Abu Rafat And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102
C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106
M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart And Another v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108
ABC vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Dinesh Paswan vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111
M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112
M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113
M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114
M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Deepak Sharma v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Deepak Sharma vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118
M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119
M/S Neeraj Potato Presarvation And Food Products Pvt.Ltd. v. U.P. Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Faciliation Council And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120
Jatan Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Pinki And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Syed Hamidul Bari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125
M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126
M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Ashish Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Vivek Soni And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133
M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134
M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140
- Raju Sahu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Smt. Bhagonia Devi vs. Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Banda And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147
M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150
M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154
M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159
State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161
M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168
Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169
M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Faizan Ahmad @ Idrisi Faizan Shamshad Ahmad And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Masood vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Om Prakash vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179
Ram Narayan Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180
Pramod vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Shakti vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185
Succha Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Devraj Singh vs. Babli Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187
Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 190
Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192
Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193
Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194
Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195
Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197
Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198
Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199
Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200
