Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : August 12 To August 18, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501 Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502 Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503 Ram Niwas Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 504 Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505 Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State Of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506 Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507 M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508 Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509 M/S Hi Tech Pipe Limited v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510 Sunil vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511 Gajendra Singh Negi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512 Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513 Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rambhual Nishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514 Geeta Devi vs. State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515 Vishal Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516 Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517 Gulamuddin And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518 Banaras Industries vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519 Jamna Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520 Orders/Judgments of the Week S.19 HMA | Family Court Can Only Decline Jurisdiction Upon Objection Of Opposite Party Or On Transfer Order By Superior Court: Allahabad HC Case Title: Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2024] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 The Allahabad High Court has held that if Family Courts at two places have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one of them can only decline entertaining such petition on grounds of jurisdiction if specific objection is pressed by the other side or an order transferring the proceedings has been passed by a superior court. Since BNS, BNSS Have Been Enacted, Allahabad High Court Disposes PIL Challenging Validity Of IPC, CrPC And Other Criminal Laws Case Title: Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501 [CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 4 of 2024] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501 The Allahabad High Court disposed of a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner sought a declaration that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other criminal laws were violative of Article 13 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner appearing in person argued that the laws were non-reformative and more punishment oriented. UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Seeks To Sustain Spirit Of Secularism; Religious Freedom Doesn't Include Collective Right To Proselytize: Allahabad HC Case title - Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502 The Allahabad High Court observed that the purpose of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is to guarantee religious freedom to all persons, reflecting India's social harmony and spirit. The objective of this Act is to sustain the spirit of secularism in India. A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further said that while the Constitution guarantees each person the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, however, this individual right does not translate into a collective right to proselytize, as religious freedom equally belongs to both the person converting and the individual being converted. Allahabad High Court Rejects An Advocate's PIL Against Centre's Mandatory FASTag Policy Case title - Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503 The Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea moved by an advocate challenging the central government's decision to declare all the lanes in the Fee Plaza at Highways as FASTag lanes. A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed thus: “…(this) decision apparently cannot be faulted in view of fast changing scenario of the National Highways wherein in absence of FASTag facility, commuters used to line up for long hours at a particular Toll Plaza for passing through them.” 'Doctrine Of Relation Back' Applies In...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : August 12 To August 18, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags