Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 04 To December 10, 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
13 Dec 2023 4:14 PM GMT
NOMINAL INDEX Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 469 Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470 Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471 Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472 National Highway...
NOMINAL INDEX
Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472
National Highway Authority Of India vs. Parimal Bajpai And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473
National Highways Authority Of India vs. Smt. Sudha And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 474
Sahil Mehra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 475
M/S Maa Bhagwati Shiksha Samiti Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Two Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Amit Agarwal v. Atul Gupta 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited v. Chopra Fabricators & Manufacturers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 478
2023 LiveLaw (AB) 479
Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 480
M/S Nutema Helth Care Pvt.Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 481
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11864 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 469
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that writ should not be granted for expeditious disposal of civil suits routinely. Only when extraordinary circumstances are shown, such directions for expeditiously disposal within a fixed period should be granted.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava placed reliance on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba and Km. Shobha Bose V. Judge Small Causes & Ors wherein it was held that “the power to direct expeditious disposal of Suit or any other Cases should be exercised sparingly in extra ordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner.”
Case Title: Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 512 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470
While refusing to quash an 11-year-old judgement in review, the Allahabad High Court held that a judgment which has attained finality cannot be treated lightly by the Courts. The Court observed that the doctrine of finality of adjudication of a case often overpowers the accuracy or correctness of a judgment.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Almost eleven years have passed since the impugned order came to be pronounced more than a decade ago. Finality attached to the judgements and orders passed by a Court is not a matter to be triffled with. It is not an assumption available under the Constitution that all judgements of the Courts would be correct on all counts. Yet, for functionality to exist and order to prevail, the doctrine of finality of adjudication often eclipses or over powers concerns or considerations that otherwise exist in favour of accuracy or correctness of judgements.”
Case Title: Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18992 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Court cannot interfere in transfer orders as they are administrative in nature and are inherent conditions of appointment.
While declining to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner, a bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“It is well settled position of law that transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule. Fundamental Rule 15 provides that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another."
Case Title: Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6662 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere adoption of government service rules by autonomous bodies does not confer the same rights on the employees of the autonomous body as those available to the government employees.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and anr Vs. Bhagwan and Ors, Justice Abdul Moin held
“From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment also it emerges that merely because the autonomous bodies have 'adopted' the government service rules, the same would not confer any right of the employees of the autonomous bodies to claim the same benefits as are admissible to government employees inasmuch as they would not fall within the ambit of being government employees or in government service.”
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India v. Parimal Bajpai And 3 Others [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 901 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court can set aside an arbitral award and remit the case back to the Arbitral Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju and Ors to hold thus:
“In light of the provisions of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the appellate powers of this Court, interest of justice which are consistent with the provisions of law will be served by remitting the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Smt. Sudha And 3 Others [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 378 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the direction of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. And Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) regarding summoning of lower court records applies only to pending cases. The Court held that the direction to file copies of pending cases was to avoid delay in proceedings of the lower court.
Justice Ajay Bhanot held that the direction to not summon original records does not cover the proceedings which have been concluded by the lower court.
Case title - Sahil Mehra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a chargesheet filed against a man facing an FIR for allegedly sharing disrespectful posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as the Indian army.
"Prima facie, given the totality of the context, the statements are divisive of the community and tend to promote insecurity in the minds of one community against another. These also tend to create fear or alarm amongst the public that may induce one Section of the public to commit offences against public tranquillity or the State," a bench of Justice JJ Munir observed as it refused to quash the chargesheet against the accused (Sahil Mehra).
Case Title: M/S Maa Bhagwati Shiksha Samiti Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Two Others [Writ Tax No. 476 Of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court has held that if Form-10 under rule 17(2) for claiming exemption has been supplied to the assessing authority after the prescribed period but before completion of assessment, it ought to be considered by the Assessing Authority for granting benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in original assessment proceedings.
Placing reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust, the bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held
“It is crystal clear that Form-10 under Rule 17 of the Rules is required to be filed before the Assessing Officer before he completes the assessment. In a case, where Form-10 is filed late but is filed before the Assessing Officer completes the assessment, benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act shall be available to the assessee.”
Case Title: Amit Agarwal v. Atul Gupta, Matters under Article 227 No. 11263 of 2023
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 477
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of the Arbitrator's mandate, citing an unjustified eight-year delay in proceedings.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the arbitrator sat over the arbitral proceedings for 8 long years without any progress and passed the award in haste after the application seeking its removal was made. Ergo, the Court held that the arbitrator acted in breach of Section 14 and its mandate stands terminated under the said provision.
Allahabad High Court Holds That Improper Notice Invalidates Ex-Parte Arbitral Award
Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited v. Chopra Fabricators & Manufacturers Pvt Ltd, Appeal U/S 37 of the A&C Act No. 146 of 2022
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 478
The Allahabad High Court has held that improper notice of arbitration invalidates an arbitration award passed ex-parte.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 requires that notice be given to the parties after the arbitrators or umpire have signed the award. Without proper notice, the court held that the proceedings leading to the judgment making the award rule of the court would be flawed.
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 479
While acquitting a husband of the charges under Section 377 IPC for allegedly committing an “unnatural offence” against his wife, the Allahabad High Court has observed that protection of a person from marital rape continues in cases where his wife is of 18 years of age or more than that.
In its order, the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also noted that in the proposed Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (which is likely to replace the Indian Penal Code), there is no provision like Section 377 IPC.
Case Title: Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 24559 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Government e Marketplace Portal for procuring goods and services is a “need of the hour”. The Court noted that the mechanism followed by the portal and the steps taken by the Government to procure all goods and services through this portal is in the best interest of buyers and sellers.
The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed
“It is a technology-driven platform to facilitate procurement of goods and services of various government departments. Introduction of such portal was actually a need of the hour. This platform does the comparison process and automatically choose by using an auto-run method to find the 'L-1'. This portal further eliminates any interference in placing the order and processing the payment.”
Case Title: M/S Nutema Helth Care Pvt.Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 42393 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings for alleged different usage of land other than the sanctioned purpose cannot be initiated under Section 28-A UP Urban Planning and Development Act 1973.
The bench comprising Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that for proceedings under Section 28-A of the 1973 Act, notice needed to be issued under Section 27 or Section 28 before the order is issued under Section 28-A. However, if allegations of land being used for a different purpose than the sanctioned one, then proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 28-A.
