Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 15 To January 21, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX 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 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Collector Can Determine Market Value Of Land At The Time Of Execution Of Sale Deed Or Period Reasonably Proximate Thereto: Allahabad High Court 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.” Nominee Of Govt Employee Merely A Custodian, Benefit After Death Of Employee Conferred To Legal Heirs: Allahabad High Court Reiterates 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.” Also read: Special Appeal Against Order Of Single Judge Dealing With Order Of...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 15 To January 21, 2024

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags