Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 5 To February 11, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX 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 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Arms License Can Be Cancelled During Pendency Of Criminal Case If Conduct Detrimental To Public Peace, Safety: Allahabad High Court 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. S.29 UP Police Act | Same Magistrate Cannot Be Both Witness & Judge In Proceedings Against SHO: Allahabad High Court 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. S.326(1) UP Municipalities Act | Notice To Municipality Not Mandatory If It Will Defeat Purpose Of Injunction Suit: Allahabad High Court 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. Allahabad HC Bats For Action Against Rape Victims Who Turn Hostile During Trial After Getting Compensation From Govt 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. 75(4) UPGST Act| Even If There Is No Request For Personal Hearing, Must Be Heard Before Adverse Decision: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 5 To February 11, 2024

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags